Final Report Investment Project Proposalnileis.nilebasin.org/system/files/Main report 010812.pdf · Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PREPARATION

Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program

FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PREPARATION OF AN INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND INVESTMENT

PROPOSAL FOR SIO-MALABA-MALAKISI SUB BASIN

Final Report

Investment Project Proposal

Revised final version - August 2012

in association with

Document quality information

General information

Auteur(s) Jean-Marc ROUSSEL, Team Leader

Project title Feasibility Study and Preparation of an Integrated Watershed Management Program and Investment Proposal for the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi Sub-Basin

Document title Final Report – Investment Project Proposal

Date August 2012

Reference GED 10412 X

Addressee(s)

Sent to :

Name Organization Sent on:

Mohammed BADAZA Project Manager, Sio-Malaba-Malakisi River Basin Management Project, Kakamega, Kenya

13/08/2012

Copy to:

Name Organization Sent on:

History of modifications

Version Date Written by: Review by:

Version 0 04/06/2012 Jean-Marc ROUSSEL, Team Leader

Emmanuel DAVAL, Project Director

Version 1 13/08/2012 Jean-Marc ROUSSEL, Team Leader

Emmanuel DAVAL, Project Director

The contents of the present report are the sole res ponsibility of the Consultant, and should not be taken as reflecting the views of the Nile Basin Authority or the Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Programme.

SIO-MALABA-MALAKISI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT STUDY

Investment Project Proposal - August 2012 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................6

CHAPTER 2. THE PROJECT........................................................................................................................8

2.1 Project background ........................................................................................................................8 2.2 Project Development objective.......................................................................................................9 2.3 Objectives of the Project ..............................................................................................................10 2.4 Project Implementation Process...................................................................................................10

CHAPTER 3. MAIN WATERSHED FEATURES..........................................................................................12

3.1 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................12 3.2 Physical features..........................................................................................................................13 3.3 Biological environment .................................................................................................................22 3.4 Population and socio economic features......................................................................................29 3.5 Soil degradation ...........................................................................................................................32 3.6 Soil conservation and erosion assessment ..................................................................................34 3.7 Priority areas for catchment rehabilitation ....................................................................................37 3.8 Wetland degradation ....................................................................................................................42 3.9 Forest degradation .......................................................................................................................44

CHAPTER 4. INTERVENTION STRATEGY................................................................................................48

4.1 Overall Strategy ...........................................................................................................................48 4.2 Main issues to be addressed........................................................................................................52 4.3 Sustainability of achievements .....................................................................................................57 4.4 Scope of the Project Proposal......................................................................................................58 4.5 Planning Horizons ........................................................................................................................59

CHAPTER 5. INSTITUTIONAL SETUP AND ARRANGEMENTS ...............................................................60

5.1 Institutional setup .........................................................................................................................60 5.2 Stakeholders Mapping .................................................................................................................61 5.3 Option 1: Focus on existing implementation channels .................................................................66 5.4 Option 2: Focus on direct implementation at district and local level .............................................71 5.5 Capacity building and projects Implementation at Community level.............................................74

CHAPTER 6. OUTLINE OF INVESTMENT PROPOSAL ............................................................................75

6.1 Components and Projects............................................................................................................75 6.2 SMM-IWM Project Management ..................................................................................................76 6.3 Project Component No.1: Watershed Conservation.....................................................................77 6.4 Project Component No.2: Income Generation..............................................................................79 6.5 Project Component No.3: Watershed Management.....................................................................80 6.6 Project Component No.4: Urban Infrastructures ..........................................................................81 6.7 Additional Investment Proposal: Supportive Activities..................................................................86 6.8 Total cost of the IWMP proposal ..................................................................................................87

CHAPTER 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM .......................................................................88

7.1 General process for M&E.............................................................................................................88



7.2 Concepts for M&E indicators ....................................................................................................... 88 7.3 Logical Framework ...................................................................................................................... 89

CHAPTER 8. ECONOMIC AND SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ................................................... 95

8.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 95 8.2 Basic Concepts............................................................................................................................ 96 8.3 Financial analysis ........................................................................................................................ 97 8.4 Economic Analysis....................................................................................................................... 98 8.5 Social/environment Analysis ........................................................................................................ 99

CHAPTER 9. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ................................... 107

CHAPTER 10. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 108



LISTOF TABLES

Table 1: Administrative units in the study area............................................................................ 12

Table 2: Types of Wetlands in the SMM basin Kenya and Uganda............................................ 27

Table 3: District Socio-economic key figures .............................................................................. 30

LIST OF MAPS

MAP 1: Location of the SMM Area ............................................................................................... 15

MAP 2: Soil Map SMM Basin ....................................................................................................... 19

MAP 2: Location of the Mt Elgon Biosphere Reserve .................................................................. 24

MAP 3: Extent of Mt Elgon forest in Kenya and Uganda. Source: Soini, 1997............................ 26

MAP 7: Physiographic Map .......................................................................................................... 38

MAP 8: Erosion evidence map within the SMM basin.................................................................. 41

MAP 9: Erosion Hazard Map........................................................................................................ 42

MAP 10: Occurrence of wetlands within the SMM Basin ............................................................. 44



ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CA Conservation agriculture CAAC Catchment Area Advisory Committee CBO Community-Based Organisation CFA Community Forest Association CIDV Centre for Integrated Development (of Tororo District) CMU Catchment Management Unit DEA Directorate of Environmental Affairs (Uganda) DED German Development Service DFD Department of Farm Development DLG District Local Government

DRSRS Department of Resource Surveys and Remote Sensing, Ministry of Environment

DSS Decision Support System DWD Directorate of Water Development (Uganda) DWO District Water Office DWRM Directorate of Water Resource Management (Uganda) EAC East African Community EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMCA Environmental Management Coordination Act (Kenya) ENR Environmental and Natural Resources ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FMH Farm Management Handbook GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System IBA Important Bird Area ICRAF International Centre of Agro-Forestry ILM Integrated Lake Management INRM Integrated Natural Resources Management IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IWM Integrated Watershed Management IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management JCC Joint Commission of Cooperation KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institutes KEFRI Kenya Forestry Research Institute KFA Kenya Forest Authority KKV Kasi kwa Vijana” (work for youth program) KWS Kenya Wildlife Service LAKIMO Lake Kyoga Integrated Management Organisation LVB Lake Victoria Basin LVBC Lake Victoria Basin Commission LVEMP Lake Victoria Environment Management Project LVNCA Lake Victoria North Catchment Area LVNCMS Lake Victoria North Catchment Management Strategy MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Uganda MAR Mean Annual Runoff MERECP Mount Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Project MEMR Ministry of Environment and Mineral Resources (Kenya) MFPED Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development



MKEMP Mount Kenya East Environmental Management Project MoU Memorandum of Understanding MOV Means of Verification MTTI Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry (Uganda) NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services (Uganda) NALEP National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Program (Kenya) NBI Nile Basin Initiative NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Kenya) NELSAP Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Plan

NEMA National Environment Management Authority (Kenya and Uganda)

NEMP National Environment Management Policy (Uganda) NFA National Forest Authority (Uganda) NFP National Forest Plan NGO Non Governmental Organisation NIB National Irrigation Board (Kenya) NLUP National Land Use Policy NRA National Roads Authority (Uganda) NRM Natural Resource Management NSWCP National Soil and Water Conservation Programme (Kenya) NWP National Water Policy NWRMS National Water Resources Management Strategy (Kenya) NWSC National Water and Sewerage Corporation (Uganda) PMU Project Management Unit PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan (Uganda) PES Payments for Environmental Services PMA Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (Uganda) PQP Project Quality Plan RCMRD Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development SCAP/MCAP Sub-Catchment or Micro-Catchment Action Plan SCMP Sub-Catchment Management Plan SIDA Swedish International Development Agency SMM Sio-Malaba-Malakisi SFM Soil Fertility Management SWAT Soil and Water Assessment Tool SWCB Soil and Water Conservation Branch (Kenya) SW/SWD Solid waste/ Storm water drainage ToR Terms of Reference TEMC Trans-boundary Ecosystem Management Committee UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority UNRA Uganda National Roads Authority WAP Water Allocation Plan WAP Water Action Plan (Uganda) MWE Ministry of Water and Environment (Uganda) MWI Ministry of Water and Irrigation (Kenya) WKIEMP Western Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project WMZ Water Management Zones WPC Water Policy Committee WREM Water Resource and Environmental Management WRMA Water Resources Management Authority WRUA Water Resource Users Association



CHAPTER 1. Introduction

The Consortium EGIS-CAS Consultants Ltd has been committed by the SMM River Basin

Project – Project Management Unit to provide a feasibility study and preparation of an integrated

watershed management program and investment proposal for Sio-Malaba-Malakisi Sub Basin, in

Kenya and Uganda.

According to the terms of reference, the study objective is to propose an investment project for

Integrated Watershed Management through a sector development program modality for priority

watersheds.

The project must contribute towards addressing catchment degradation issues optimal

and sustained production of the integrated use of natural resources of the watersheds

with minimum damage to the environment for the benefit of the inhabitants of the

watershed and the communities linked to them.

Beside, in developing the investment project, the consultant must ensure that there are

linkages to country Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) and Country assistance

strategies; as well as nationally implemented programs and identify mechanisms to

implement nationally while retaining transboundary coordination/collaboration.

The principal requested output is an Investment Project Proposal presented as the study Final

Report developed with, in Annexes: the following documents:

(i) Details of the sector projects involved in the process/

�� integrated watershed management

�� community based wetlands management

�� Solid waste management and storm water drainage plans for Bungoma and Lwakhakha

(ii) An Environmental Social Management Framework

(iii) An Integrated Watershed Management Investment Project

(iv) An Institutional set up for Project Implementation



The present Final Report is the final output of the consultancy services. The report is composed

with a Main Report and 6 Annexes presenting respectively the different Investment Projects, the

Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), a synthesis of the Integrated

Watershed Management Investment Project and a proposal for an institutional set up for Project

Implementation:

The Final Report has been preceded by an Inception Report and an Interim Report containing

the project basic information i.e. a watershed characterisation, including a hydrological

modelisation, a sector assessment for water, agriculture/agroforestry, forestry, an assessment of

the extent and severity of land degradation, the institutional and legal framework for the

develppement of the project and an analysis if the main stakeholders. The main elements of the

Interim Report are presented again in the Final Report for easy understanding.

The present Volume is the Main Report of the overall Final Report, whereas each project

proposal will be presented in a separate volume.

IWMP FINAL REPORT

Main report Investment Project Proposal

Annex 1 Catchment rehabilitation and management and investment plan

Annex 2 Community based wetlands management and investment plan

Annex 3A Solid waste management plan for Bungoma and Lwakhakha and investment plan

Annex 3B Storm water drainage plan for Bungoma and Lwakhakha and investment plan

Annex 4 Environmental Social Management Framework

Annex 5 Integrated Watershed Management Investment Project

Annex 6 Institutional set up for Project Implementation



CHAPTER 2. The Project

2.1 Project background

The Sio-Malaba-Malakisi (SMM) River Basin Management Project is one of the three

transboundary integrated water resources management and development projects being

implemented within the framework of the Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program

(NELSAP), an investment program of the Nile Basin Initiative. The SMM project targets

economic growth opportunities through co-operative management of the shared water resources

amongst Nile Equatorial Lakes countries, to alleviate poverty, enhance economic growth and

reverse environmental degradation. It also contributes towards the wider Nile Basin Initiative

(NBI) goal of achieving sustainable socio-economic development through equitable utilization of,

and benefit from, the common Nile Basin water resources.

The SMM basin consists of the Malaba-Malakisi catchment, which originates from the southern

slope of Mount Elgon and drains towards Lake Kyoga, and the Sio catchment, which originates

from hills south of Mount Elgon and drains into Lake Victoria. These catchments have

experienced significant land use changes over the past years due, in particular, to increasing

population pressure, as local inhabitants continue to clear forests and drain wetlands to create

new agricultural land and establish new settlements.

The fast population growth in the SMM basin has led to excessive land fragmentation and has

pushed farming activities into marginal areas that are vulnerable to soil erosion and nutrient loss;

it has also led to increased encroachment of ecologically fragile areas such as wetlands,

riverbanks and protected forests for farming purposes. The SMM basin is also experiencing

water resources quantity and quality challenges as a result of over-abstraction of surface water;

poor land use management practices; encroachment on river riparian lands and wetlands; flash

floods; increased sediment loads in the water courses and water storage facilities. Further,

poorly controlled effluent discharges from industry and sewage outflows, and the excessive

nutrient and agro-chemical pollution from diffuse sources have negatively impacted surface

water and groundwater quality.

An Integrated Watershed Management Project is therefore necessary to address the above

issues and contribute towards reversal of the current trend of catchments degradation, without

losing sight of the need to ensure livelihood for the whole population.

The proposed project will address critical trans-boundary problems of pollution and soil erosion

but also enhance collaboration between communities across the common border between

Kenya and Uganda and more so strengthen regional cooperation.



2.2 Project Development objective

The project development seeks to address the catchment degradation and allow optimal and

sustained use of natural resources of the watersheds with minimum damage to the environment

and for the benefit of the inhabitants of the watershed and the communities linked to them.

The proposal for investment projects is linked with the country Poverty Reduction Strategy

Papers (PRSPs) and Country assistance strategies; as well as nationally implemented

programs and is expected to identify mechanisms to implement nationally while retaining

transboundary coordination/collaboration.

The project arises as a major challenge to pursue and make effective into one objective the

different interests and the goals at different horizons of the different stakeholders, such as:

• The improvement of living conditions, and first of all economic incomes, of the mostly

rural population of the area; this improvement must be prepared to cope with the rapid

increase in population which is currently observed and is expected to continue in the

medium term;

• Other aspects of living conditions directly linked to watershed management, such as

quality of alimentation and hygiene conditions, must also be taken into account;

• Social dimensions that must be included in the project, such as the role of women in

decision making and in management, the specific place of the increasingly numerous

youth in the communities, the general process of decentralisation in both Kenya and

Uganda leading to the establishment of farmers’ associations at local level…

• The direct environmental protection of the watershed by improvement of the forest cover

and other tree plantation, and the improvement of agricultural practices, all measures

tending to decrease the amount of soil lost each year to surface runoff, causing loss of

soil fertility in the slopes and impeded drainage in the lower lands;

• The induced effects of environmental degradation, such as lower river water quality, and

local erosion in the river banks and along the roads;

• The protection of wetlands to conserve their role in the ecosystem and in the economic

and social organisation.

To achieve these goals, it is necessary to promote a balance between the three basic action

lines, from project design to implementation process: environmental protection and reasonable

use of natural resources; provision of income opportunities for each family in mostly rural areas,

on another side; and support to organisation and management level. Efforts to improve

environmental conditions (biodiversity, erosion control, wetlands protection) can be proposed to

the communities and farmers if, within the same project, real opportunities for a better livelihood

are included through increased production, diversification of products and activities, and



improved access to market for the products… Only under such conditions will the local

communities make a commitment towards measures leading to a sustainable development,

leaving behind the short-sighted actions sometimes observed now to ensure immediate

subsistence production.

2.3 Objectives of the Project

Global Environment objective

The global environment objective of the project is to promote a set of integrated watershed

management interventions so as to achieve local and global benefits. These benefits include

reduction of land degradation, of pollutants emission in the water bodies and of erosion on

watersheds that feed into rivers down to lake Victoria in Kenya and Lake Kyoga in Uganda,

reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in atmosphere, improved carbon storage in forests

and woodlands and in-and off-farm biodiversity.

Specific objectives

The specific objectives to reach by implementing the IWMP are the following:

�� Land and natural resources degradation is stabilized in the watershed

�� Livelihoods, incomes and welfare of populations have improved

�� Flow regimes in streams have improved

�� Flooding and landslide risks have decreased

�� Water pollution of surface water and groundwater has decreased

�� Wetland management has improved

�� Water resource management has been enhanced

2.4 Project Implementation Process

The process to prepare the current Investment Project Proposal reflects the process designed

for implementation: in both cases an important role is given to the local stakeholders.

Successive discussions with government officers al local level and with farmers associations to

establish the proposal and to confirm the findings have opened the way for a process of

project/sub-projects implementation through the existing farmers associations or through other

users groups which may be formed soon.

Group strengthening, capacity building, and advice to individuals through the groups: most

actions are meant to be channelled through the different types of farmers associations and other

Community Based Organisations. Indeed these groups are often existing, have started

developing initiatives in line with Integrated Watershed Management, but are sometimes



struggling against constraints that can be overcome by the SMM Project: low awareness of

many community members, lack of knowledge on precise technical matters, lack of exposure to

experiences realised elsewhere, lack of funds for operation of community centres (tree

nurseries, fish ponds, crop storage…), difficulty in taking the crops (and particularly new

products) to the market for sale in good conditions.

Within the groups and the communities, a specific space will be given to women and to the

youth. Indeed most first-sight decisions may fall on activities usually run by men, such as

agriculture or forestry. Yet sustainable development will be effective if based on new activities

leading to a higher diversity in sources of income, and these new sources of income can be, to

a wide extent, entrusted to women (because of their organisation and capacity) or to young

persons (because of their enthusiasm). Note that the new sources of income that can be added

and financed, including such activities as fish ponds, other animals farming, beekeeping, growth

or collection of medicinal plants, can easily remain under the responsibility of women and be a

source of activity for the youth.



CHAPTER 3. Main Watershed Features

3.1 Study Area

The area to be studied for the Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP) includes the

whole Sio river watershed basin, tributary of the Lake Victoria in Kenya and the upstream part of

the Malaba-Malakisi river watershed basin tributary of the Lake Kyoga in Uganda.

The Sio River catchment occupies an area of about 1,448 km2 while the Malaba-Malakisi

catchment (including Mpologoma) covers an area of 3,782 km2; thus the total study area

amounts to 5,230 km², in accordance with Table 1 below.

ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS

The administrative division of the watershed in both countries is presented below, with the

updated names for each unit. Several changes have been occurring, and may still occur in the

near future; this point brought some difficulty in data collection, and implementation phase will

require a particular attention to stick to the valid units at the time of action.

Table 1: Administrative units in the study area

DISTRICT TOTAL AREA (KM2)

AREA IN SMM (KM2)

HEADQUARTERS DIVISIONS (K) /SUB-COUNTIES (U) COVERED OR

TOUCHED BY SMM

KENYA WESTERN PROVINCE Bungoma South 666.4 450.7 Bungoma Kanduyi

Bungoma West 445.5 173.4 Sirisia Sirisia, Malakisi,

Lwandanyi

Busia 681.0 681.1 Busia Matayos, Busia

Township

Mt. Elgon 956.6 292.4 Kapsakwony Cheptais, Kopsiro,

Kaptama

Teso North 223.6 223.6 Amagoro Amagoro, Angurai

Teso South 331.8 331.8 Amukura Amukura, Chakol

Mumias 590.2 101.3 Mumias

Samia 265.1 92.3 Funyula

Siaya NA 5 Approx. for small

area

SUBTOTAL 2351.6



UGANDA EASTERN REGION Bududa 250.8 17.5 Bududa Bubiita

Bugiri 1453.0 692.3 Bugiri Nabukala, Iwemba,

Buluguyi, Bulesa,

Budhaya,

Muterere,

Kapyanga, Bugiri

TC

Busia 763.3 635.4 Busia Busitema, Buteba,

Bulumbi, Dabami,

Masaju, Masaba,

Lunyo, Lumino,

Buhahe, Busia TC

Butaleja 652.8 234.0 Butaleja Budumba,

Busolwa, Busaba,

Nawanjo

Manafwa 602.0 246.5 Manafwa Buwabwala,

Bupoto, Bumbo,

Bumwoni, Bubuto,

Butini

Namutumba 813.7 246.6 Namutumba Magada,

Namutumba,

Bulange

Tororo 1195.9 805.8 Tororo Paya, Kirewa,

Nagongera, Petta,

Mukuju, Kwapa,

Kisoko, Merikit,

Molo

SUBTOTAL 2878.1

TOTAL 5229.7

3.2 Physical features

Topography

The Sio-Malaba-Malakisi (SMM) basin lies between latitude 1° 13’ 30” N to 0° 19’ 30” S and

longitude 33° 67’ 30”E to 34° 57’ 10” E.



The Sio-Malaba-Malakisi (SMM) basin is 4 km wide at its top increasing to about 18 km at the

southern edge of Mount Elgon Forest Reserve on the Kenyan side and Mount Elgon National

Park on the Uganda side. It widens to about 100 km, and covers a total of 5,230 km 2 with the

Sio catchment covering 28% of the area.

The Malaba River originates as Lwakhakha River at about 4,240 masl, only 2.5 km west of the

source of the Malakisi River, both starting just below the southern edge of the Mount Elgon

crater. The Lwakhakha River forms the Kenya-Uganda border before its name changes to

Malaba River when it joins Malakisi River some 15 km west of Malaba town. The Malaba River

is further named as the Mpolongoma River when it flows into the swamps towards Lake Kyoga

in Uganda at about 950 masl.

Kenya and Uganda have 1,067 km2 (28%) and 2,715 km2 (72%) of the Malaba-Malakisi

catchment respectively. In the upper parts of this catchment, impacts from unfavourable

watershed functions (pollution, erosion induced sediment, peak floods) are produced on either

side of the border and are noticeable all along the main streams.

The Sio River originates at an altitude of about 1,450 masl west of Bungoma town south of

Mount Elgon and flows into Berkeley Bay in Lake Victoria Basin in Kenya at 1142 masl. The

main stream of the Sio is approximately 78 km long with much of its length being along the

Kenya-Uganda border. Approximately 1,285 km2 (89%) and 163 km2 (11%) of the Sio River is in

Kenya and Uganda respectively.

SIO-MALABA -MALAKISI AREA

MALABA -MALAKISI WATERSHED

TO LAKE KYOGA

SIO RIVER WATERSHED TO LAKE VICTORIA

KENYA 1,067 km² (28%) 1,285 km2 (89%)

UGANDA 2,715 km2 (72%) 163 km2 (11%)



MAP 1: Location of the SMM Area


Investment Project Proposal - August 2012

Local Climate

Observed characteristics

The climate of the SMM catchment area is categorized as humid and sub-humid

that is primarily affected by the movement of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone

(ITCZ) but the effects are modified by the presence of Lake Victoria and the local

topography. Lake Victoria dictates the distribution of rainfall over its peripheral areas

in Uganda and Kenya where average annual rainfall ranges between 1460 – 1600

mm. Further away from the shoreline, orographic effects play a dominant role: mean

annual rainfall increases from 1250 mm in the plains to over 2000mm on the

medium slopes (up to 4000 masl) of Mt. Elgon, then decreasing again towards the

summit, where 1750 mm/year is recorded.

In the Sio catchment, rainfall varies from 1800 mm in the upper areas to 1590 mm in

its outfall reaches. Parts of Busia and Teso districts have microclimates with low

rainfall of about 700 mm annually.

For Kenya, the SMM basin is considered as part of Lake Victoria basin, which is one

of the two river basins with a water surplus (Kiai and Mailu, 1995). However, rainfall

is highly variable, with the deficit or excess potentially reaching 50% on an annual

basis. This makes the SMM basin prone to both floods and droughts.

For temperatures, the most relevant feature is the orographic influence experienced

within the SMM. Mean maximum temperature is about 27.5oC around low-lying

areas and about 5 degrees lower around the slopes of Mt. Elgon. Evaporation is

greatest during the dry months of January and February when 175 mm are

evaporated monthly over open water bodies on the foothills; then decreasing with

altitude to 125 mm in the higher areas.

Climate Change

Incorporating the comprehension of global Climate risks trends is crucial to the

sustainability of of the integrated watershed management project activities, focusing

on objectives of mitigation (emission reduction, carbon sequestration, etc.) and of

adaptation (i.e. promoting climate proofing investment and techniques) strategies to

climate change.

Climate analysis using the Regional Global Climate Model (GCM model) indicates

that Kenya and Uganda are likely to experience the following climate changes

between the late 2020 and 2100:

�� Average annual temperature will rise by between 1°C and 5C, typically 1°C by 2020s and 4°C by 2100.



�� Climate is likely to become wetter in both rainy seasons, but particularly in the Short Rain (October to December) even by 2020. Global Climate Models predict increases in northern Kenya (rainfall increases by 40% by the end of the century), whilst a regional model suggests that there may be greater rainfall in the West. The rainfall seasonality i.e. Short and Long Rains are likely to remain the same while rainfall events during the wet seasons will become more extreme by 2100. Consequently flood events are likely to increase in frequency and severity.

�� Droughts are likely to occur with similar frequency as at present, but to increase in severity. This is linked to the increase in temperature.

Physiography

The main physical features of the SMM basin include: steep volcano slopes,

escarpments, rolling hills, undulating hills, gently undulating plains, and wetlands.

The top parts of the basin at the cone of Mt. Elgon consists of steep slopes of about

20-30% with straight parallel streams in steeply incised valleys of about 40-50%

slope. The topmost area is the Chepkitale National Reserve on the Kenyan side and

Mount Elgon National Park on the Uganda side and consists of heather vegetation.

Below this is the Mount Elgon forest between about 2,000 and 3,000 masl with more

irregular slopes of gradient between 15 and 30% with rivers found in parallel gorges.

This zone has distinguishable sub-units with Tropical High Forest, Encroached

Tropical Forest, Woodland and Grass/Heather/Moorland. The bottom of the volcano

slope is marked by escarpments. Below the escarpments, rolling and undulating

hills have slope range of 5-15%; the main rivers start meandering from here.

Towards the south, plains and valleys gently undulate with slope less than 5%.

Some valleys have seasonal wetlands. Main streams have incised beds but strongly

meander. The Sio sub-catchment is almost exclusively covered by this almost flat or

gently undulating landscape.

Soils

There is a wide range of soils types in the catchment that vary considerably in

fertility, drainage characteristics, and agricultural potential. On the upper slopes of

Mt. Elgon, there are essentially three soil types: Andosols (eutrophic soils of tropical

regions), Nithosols (or ferrisols) and the Histosols (hydromorphic soils).

Soils of moderate to high fertility are confined largely to the mountainous parts.

These are volcanic in origin, young and rich in minerals. On the upper parts of

Mount Elgon, the soils are developed on recent volcanoes and are clay loam, well-

drained, shallow to moderately deep, dark reddish brown, friable, humid, rocky and

stony.



On the undulating lower slopes of Mt. Elgon, the soils are formed on granite and

they are well-drained, extremely deep, dark reddish brown to dark brown, friable

clays with acidic humid topsoil. The soils in the middle and lower part of the

catchments are well-drained, moderately deep to very deep, reddish brown to yellow

brown, friable clay over basement rock.

Along the river valleys, the soils are a complex and imperfectly drained to poorly

drained, very deep, very dark grey to brown, mottled, friable to firm, sandy clay to

clay, often underlying a topsoil of friable sandy clay loam.

Land use and land cover

A land cover map has been elaborated using data from the FAO Africover web site:

http://www.africover.org/system/africover_data.php and has been used to

describe the land cover in the watershed.

The whole basin, outside the Mount Elgon forest area, is divided into agricultural

cultivated land, but also including grassland, fallow land, and isolated woodlots or

orchards. In the land cover maps this is all grouped under ‘Rainfed herbaceous

crops’. On sloping land, this pattern follows the contour lines as in the upper

Malakisi-catchment. This pattern is more distinct with increasing slope gradients,

and more distinct on the Kenyan than on the Ugandan side. In the valleys however

fields run perpendicular to the drainage.

Together with the Busitema forest reserve in Busia district, Mount Elgon forest is the

only substantial remaining area of natural forest. The highest areas of Mt. Elgon are

covered by moorland and heather. In the rest of the basin, large areas of natural

forest cover including riparian zones and some seasonal wetlands have been

converted into agricultural use, leading to further degradation of the catchment

areas and an increase in soil erosion and sedimentation. Nevertheless, numerous

small private woodlots and scattered tree planting are also widespread.

The main part of the watershed is thus covered with rainfed small herbaceous fields,

with more abundant areas with shrubs or sparse trees in the upper and middle

catchments.

Inundated wetlands including locations with aquaculture are concentrated much

more in the south western part of the basin (Tororo-Busia area and further west).

Near Bugiri, rice fields are well developed.



MAP 2: Soil Map SMM Basin



Figure 1: Description of soil Units of Map 2



Surface Water & Ground Water Resources

SURFACE WATER

The Sio and the Malaba-Malakisi river catchments composing the study area drain two adjacent

areas on the southern slopes of Mt. Elgon. The Malaba and Malakisi Rivers originate from the

slopes of Mt. Elgon while the Sio River originates from wetlands in hills to the west of Bungoma

Town.

The rivers are transboundary with some of their reaches forming the boundary of the two

countries. The Sio River discharges into Lake Victoria while the Malaba River flows westwards

into Lake Kyoga after it is joined by the Malakisi River. Thus, the SMM catchments are part of

the Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga catchments, which in turn are part of the Nile River basin

The Malaba River originates from the southwest slopes of Mt. Elgon where it is known as

Lwakhakha and flows along the common border between Kenya and Uganda. Upstream of

Malaba town, the Lwakhakha river becomes Malaba. The Malakisi River which flows entirely in

Kenya rises from the southern slopes of Mt. Elgon. The river discharges into the Malaba River

along the Kenya/Uganda border to the south of Tororo town. The Malaba River then turns west ,

then north-west, changes its name to Mpologoma and flows into Lake Kyoga.

The Sio River originates from a marshy land to the south-west of Bungoma town. A Sio

tributary, the Walatsi, originates from the south of Malakisi market. The two rivers join near

Nambale market and flow southwest toward the Uganda border. Subsequently, the river flows

along the Kenya-Uganda border until it discharges into Lake Victoria. The majority of the Sio

River catchment is in Kenya and consists of rolling plains.

GROUND WATER

Groundwater resources in the upper SMM catchment constitute a safe domestic water supply

source for rural communities, particularly when developed through shallow wells. However, the

abundance of surface water resources and the expense involved in the development of

groundwater wells has resulted in minimal groundwater utilization. The groundwater aquifer

system in the upper catchment comprises of various geological formations. In the Mt. Elgon

region, it includes decomposed tertiary volcanic phonolites and agglomerate tuffs, supporting

good inter-granular and fracture-flow aquifers with yields from 5 to over 20 m3/h. In the Mumias

and Kavirondian granites, borehole yields vary from below 1.5 m3/h to over 5 m3/h.

In Teso district, the northern side of Angurai Division has a low groundwater table where deep

wells/boreholes of between 60-150 m are recommended. The southern side has high water

table, where shallow wells of about 20 m to 35 m depths are found. Shallow wells in Malaba

Town are highly prone to contamination due to poor sanitation.



Hydrogeological conditions in the catchment are typical of Precambrian Basement terrain where

aquifers occur in the weathered overburden (regolith) and in the fractured bedrock. In Tororo

and Busia, boreholes are typically drilled into fractured bedrock, which is required to provide

sufficient transmissitivity, but with the main storage still being provided by the overlying

saturated regolithic soil.

The hydrogeological regime in the Basement rock terrain of Eastern Uganda is thus

characterized by relatively low yielding boreholes that frequently tap aquifers both in the regolith

and the underlying fractured bedrock.

FLOOD INCIDENCES AND DAMAGE

No flood prone areas with long inundation periods exist within the SMM basin, with the

exception of the area at the Malaba-Malakisi rivers confluence where simultaneous high water

in both rivers may cause backwater flooding with longer durations than the common flash floods

in the rest of the area.

3.3 Biological environment

Biodiversity

Kenya is home to 25,000 species of animal and 7,000 species of plants, while Uganda has an

occurrence of about 19,000 species in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. But in the two

countries this high biodiversity is diversely conserved depending of the considered area.

Western Kenya and East Uganda have a variety of forests, grassland and wetland habitats that

include both common and endangered species.

Several ecologically sensitive sites are under threat from agricultural induced encroachment.

Although the SMM basin has a number protected areas (see next section), including large forest

habitats in the upper catchment (Mount Elgon), several smaller reluctant forest fragments,

grasslands and wetlands that are home to threatened or endangered species but are not

necessary protected.

Forest fragments, grasslands, wetlands and riparian areas are critical natural habitats that serve

as important refuge for a variety of endemic and threatened species.

Wetland areas play an important role as water filters, fish nurseries and migratory and endemic

bird habitats. Traditional groves and other forest fragments are among the last remaining areas

outside of protected forest reserves where a high density of endemic plant species can be

found. SMM Basin also has a number of small riparian zones around the major rivers and their

tributaries. Riparian areas often form unique ecosystems that do not extend beyond the narrow

boundaries of the river and are home to species not found in the general catchment zone.



Grass or shrublands are easy targets for conversion to agricultural lands but are also important

ecosystems for small mammal and bird species. Agriculture related threats to critical biodiversity

habitats in the SMM basin include clearing or drainage of land for cultivation, overgrazing, tree

removal for local fuel wood use, sedimentation of wetlands, and destruction of riverbanks

through cultivation or removal of tree and plant vegetation. Many of the critical habitats are in

densely populated areas and are under threat from agricultural induced encroachment. Habitats

are in densely populated areas and are under threat from agricultural induced encroachment.

Protected area

Protected areas in the SMM area include:

�� The forested Mount Elgon slopes on the Ugandan side of the SMM Basin being part of a National Park stretching out over the western and northern slopes of Mount Elgon;

�� The forested Mount Elgon slopes within the Kenyan part of the SMM Basin being part of a National Forest Reserve;

�� Mount Elgon National Park in Kenya covering only part of the forest reserve, located outside the SMM basin, just beyond the boundary of Western Province, in Rift Valley Province; and

�� The whole of Mount Elgon is a UNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve. In Uganda, Mount Elgon also qualifies as Cloud Forest site.

Mt. Elgon National Park and Forest Reserves have an additional Protected Area status because

of their water tower function: reserved and legally protected for purposes of water catchment.

They form headwaters for a number of rivers and have high rainfall potential. Such areas also

act as groundwater recharge areas. The highest areas of Mt Elgon, under moorland and

heather, are part of the Uganda National Park or the Kenyan Forest Reserve, and they do not

need special consideration for the management of the water resource.

The lower Sio wetland is classified as an Important Bird Area (IBA), a conservation area for

biodiversity; IBAs are protected by the UN convention on biodiversity which therefore gives a

head-start in protecting and conserving them as water resources and conservation areas.



MAP 3: Location of the Mt Elgon Biosphere Reserve

Forests

The natural vegetation cover from the mountain top to the lowlands consists of:

�� High altitude moorland and heath

�� High altitude forest

�� Moist savannahs

�� Dry savannahs

�� Farmlands

UPPER CATCHMENT FORESTS

The main forest resources in the SMM region are found around the Mt Elgon ecosystem (MAP

4). Mount Elgon is a solitary extinct volcano straddling the border between Uganda and Kenya.



Mt. Elgon is an extremely valuable ecosystem with unique biodiversity, a set of precious

component ecosystems and habitats including 180,000 ha of forest and supports thousands of

people-directly and indirectly. It is also catchment for important water systems contributing to

the Turkwel River and Lake Turkana, to the Lake Victoria basin and to the Nile River basin via

Lake Kyoga.

Despite its importance, the Mt. Elgon forest faces a number of threats which includes:

agricultural encroachment and settlement in forest protected areas, unregulated use of forest

products and hunting of wildlife, soil erosion, and landslides. There has been a long history of

forest utilization by the local community of Mount Elgon and natural resources still provide the

means of livelihood of the people. The collection of forest products and grazing of livestock

within the forest are important sources of livelihood. Beyond the forest provides religious and

cultural values to the local communities who often use it for circumcision ceremonies and

spiritual gatherings.

The conservation of Mount Elgon ecosystem is vital to the economic functioning of an extensive

surrounding area. The ecosystem plays a crucial role as a water catchment, supplying

approximately one million people to the north and west with fresh water (Howard, 1991).

In Uganda, much of Bududa district is located in the tropical highland forest area (MAP 3) while

Bulucheke and Bukigai sub-counties lie at the border with Mt. Elgon National Park. The

mountain region is one of the major biodiversity hotspots of Uganda and as such the vegetation

in the National Park is well guarded by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). The restrictions

imposed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) on the access of the Mountain Elgon National

Park and the surrounding forest reserves have however, limited the number of ecosystem

services the nearby communities derive from the forests.

In the mid-1990s, a Collaborative Forestry Management (CFM) scheme was introduced to

increase access albeit with forest conservation objectives by the communities. However, these

schemes have only been partially successful as considerable encroachment of Mount Elgon

area took place and biodiversity degraded. However, since the late 1980’s there have been

more efforts to replace the degraded forest areas and slowly the ecosystem is being restored.



MAP 4: Extent of Mt Elgon forest in Kenya and Uganda. Source: Soini, 1997

LOWER CATCHMENT FORESTS

In most of the lower SMM catchments, natural forests have been cleared since the turn of the

last century for agricultural land and livestock grazing. Most forests in the Malaba and

Mpolongoma river catchment have been degraded; in the Tororo and Busia districts, trees have

recently been cut down for lime burning and charcoal making.

In the Busia District, the West-Bugwe Forest Reserve is the only gazetted reserve in the area.

The reserve covers an area of 38.7 km2 and consists of three blocks. This is a medium altitude

semi-deciduous forest and is highly degraded because of agricultural encroachment, illegal

timber harvesting, and charcoal burning and grazing. This forest is highly valuable and supports

two important tree species and one butterfly (Belenois robrosignate) that are not found

elsewhere in Uganda. The reserve also has good recreation potential being the only available

natural reserve between Iganga and Busia.



Wetlands

WETLAND OCCURRENCE

Most wetlands occur in the lower reaches of the Malaba, Malikisi and Sio rivers. The Malaba

has an average discharge of about 30m3/s in the lower part, the lower Malakisi an average of

about 11 m3/s, and the Sio has a mean of about 11 m3/s with a maximum of about 50 m3/s in a

flood. The combined flows of the Malaba and Malakisi only provide about 10% of the drainage

to the Lake Kyoga wetlands. The Sio only provides 1.5% of the drainage to Lake Victoria.

Table 2: Types of Wetlands in the SMM basin Kenya and Uganda

NATURAL FRESHWATER WETLANDS

Permanent • River banks

• Inland deltas Riverine

Temporary • Seasonal rivers

• River floodplains

Permanent • Lakes >10 ha

• Ponds <10 ha Lacustrine

Temporary • Seasonal lakes >10 ha

• Seasonal ponds <10 ha

Palustrine Permanent • Herbaceous swamps

• Woody swamp forest

MAN-MADE FRESHWATER WETLANDS

Aquaculture Fish ponds

Agriculture Farm ponds Rice fields, irrigation

These rivers feed wetlands that would normally be classed as predominantly seasonal. But the

discharge information above would suggest that the pattern of floodplain cover is more irregular

and more randomly distributed throughout the year making the seasonal signal less distinct.

Most of the Kenya part of the SMM area has only small floodplain areas or none at all in the

upper reaches. Significant wetlands in the courses of all the rivers only begin at about the stage

of the international border with Uganda. The wetlands in the Uganda part of the SMM area are

very substantial and lead into the western part of the Kyoga wetland complex.

There are few natural permanent open waters and these are small, but open waters appear

seasonally in the larger more westerly floodplains. Man-made open waters occur, some of

which are for fish farming and some cleared patches for papyrus harvesting.



WETLAND CONDITIONS

In the upper parts of the SMM catchments in Kenya, wetlands are mostly riverine. Significant

seasonal wetlands begin to form near the Ugandan border with large permanent wetlands

forming further inside the Uganda portion of the SMM basin.

A large part of the areas indicated as wetlands between Mumias in Kenya and the Uganda

border are planted in sugar cane (out-growers for processing companies) while substantial

areas of wetlands have been converted to rice fields in Uganda. There are two major man-made

wetlands for rice cultivation at Doho and Kibimba.

Un-encroached wetlands in the Uganda part of the SMM area are substantial particularly on the

eastern part of the Kyoga wetland complex as encroachment decreases downstream westwards

with little wetland modification in the western margins of the SMM basin. Here, the seasonally

changeable zone is a relatively small as the wetlands are largely too wet and deep to be

encroached for cultivation.

Although the wetlands are of permanent papyrus type throughout, they contain large enough

areas with mixed vegetation of valuable biodiversity. This gradation of features indicates that

management options for the wise use of the wetlands must change emphasis with the degree of

wetland permanence and highlights the importance of management plans having to be location-

specific.

Where it has not been converted by cultivation, the natural wetland vegetation can be classified

botanically as mixed herbaceous lacustrine typical of variably flooded zones, but the permanent

wetland is mostly floating papyrus. As the water becomes shallower and less permanent the

vegetation changes progressively to other species. Tree species typical of swamp forest are in

patches in the outer margins of the herbaceous zones where the period of the seasonal flood is

less.

EXISTING WETLAND USES IN THE SMM BASIN

Over 80% of the residents of the SMM catchments are subsistence farmers, and a variety of

generally rain-fed food crops are grown both in and out of the seasonally flooded zones.

Encroachment into the wetlands has increased the area for this purpose.

Fish are caught in the wetlands for home consumption. Types of fish are typical of a riverine

derived assemblage of benthic and surface feeders mostly caught in set nets. This is carried out

in patches of open waters particularly where papyrus has been harvested. Papyrus is harvested

for a wide variety of uses such as roof thatching, mats and other sheeting uses, construction and

fuel. It is also shredded and twisted into rope. Reeds are used for baskets, binding construction,

mulching, fodder and pasture. Trees yield firewood, charcoal, construction timber and medicine.



3.4 Population and socio economic features

Population distribution and density

Population densities within the SMM basin range from 240 to over 600 persons per km 2 with

high population growth rates of between 2.4 and 3% per year . Highest population densities

exist in the northern Districts in the basin of both Kenya and Uganda (except Mt Elgon) i.e.

Bungoma West and South, Teso North, Bududa and Manafwa. Bungoma South District that

hosts Bungoma town has the highest density of 613 persons/km2.

Population growth has resulted in heavy and increasing pressure on the catchment natural

resources rendering their current rate of exploitation unsustainable. It has also resulted in

encroachment of gazetted forests and wetlands for additional agricultural land. Because the

population growth rates in the catchment are much higher than the rate of expansion of

infrastructure and social services, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the authorities to meet

their development targets in terms of service delivery (e.g., water supply and sanitation

coverage) under current investment levels.

Demography, environmental degradation and poverty

The primary livelihood strategy for about 80% of the population in the SMM catchments is mixed

farming. Livestock forms an important part of the household asset base for farmers. Traditional

land management in western Kenya region and eastern Uganda has relied on fallowing of

unproductive fields to restore fertility and decrease pest problems. The rapid increase in

population density makes this practice untenable and has led to wide scale abandonment of

fallowing. High rural population growth coupled with stagnating urban job growth has

accelerated the search for new agricultural land, resulting in a high rate of woodlands, forests,

grasslands and wetlands conversion for agricultural use.

Poverty and scarcity of productive resources cause desperation, which leads to over-extraction

of natural resources, increased resource scarcity and further degradation until communities

exhaust the resource base. This is the situation in much of the SMM area. Access to social and

economic amenities is limited. For example, about 95% of the inhabitants have no access to

electricity and alternative sources such as solar are very expensive. Fuel wood (firewood and

charcoal) are the main sources of energy for cooking in more than 90% of the households. The

search for firewood has led to encroachment into forest resources and cutting down of trees.



Table 3: District Socio-economic key figures

DISTRICT POP > 2

YRS

HH EXT. KM2 INHAB .

/KM2

LITE-RACY RATE

POVERTY

INDEX

SW* %

KENYA

Mt Elgon 153,178 32,412 957 180 57 56 91

Bungoma W 216,829 47,632 446 547 83

Bungoma S 334,308 83,213 666 613

89 56

91

Teso N 105,392 23,424 261 452 81

Teso S 122,833 27,256 230 460

67 56

79

Busia 293,021 68,770 681 481 66 66 91

TOTAL 1,225,561 282,507 3,241 378.1

UGANDA

Bududa 124,368 251 450 63 30-40 75

Bugiri 426,522 1,453 284 59 50-60 35

Busia 228,181 763 325 63 50-60 69

Butaleja 160,927 653 245 78 40-50 60

Manafwa 140,015 602 493 67 30-40 47

Namutumba 169,156 801 242 34 40-50 80

Tororo 398,601 1,196 313 57 40-50 75

TOTAL 1,647,970 5,732 287.5

*SW=Safe water coverage

Source: Source: Kenya census 2010, Uganda Census 2002 for Districts and counties for Population, other information from Water Sector Performance Report 2010.

Note that data for the 7 Ugandan districts could not be obtained from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics website (www.ubos.org) because the last census dates back from 2002 and the districts of Bududa, Butaleja, Manafwa, Namutumba and Tororo have been either created or significantly modified between 2005 and 2007. In some more months, when the 2012 Census is completed, data similar to those collected for Kenya will be available.

Agricultural production

Agriculture is the primary source of income for most Ugandans and Kenyans, accounting for

around 40–50% of GDP, up to 90% of exports, and employing approximately 80% of the labour

force in both countries in 1996 (World Bank 2002b).

On average, rural households derive nearly three-quarters of their income from crop farming.

Smallholders dominate the agricultural sector with over 90% of crop production being produced

on farms averaging less than 2 hectares .



However, smallholders in Uganda have difficulties obtaining credit for investment and for

improvement of farming techniques. Hence, improving credit access and farmer extension are

key recent interventions for boosting agricultural development in Uganda (FAO 1998).

Both sides of the border have similar agro-ecosystems and cropping systems, with eastern

Uganda through to western Kenya representing a gradient with changing soil types, from the

lowland ferrisols to highland nitisols in Uganda to humic nitisols in western Kenya, with

increasing agricultural production and increasing population densities from west to east. This

has resulted in a range of land use systems that respond to this gradient.

The main crops grown in the SMM basin are maize, beans and groundnuts with maize being

a subsistence and cash crop at the same time. Other crops include millet, beans, sesame,

sweet potatoes, potatoes, bananas, and cassava, etc. In downstream areas in Uganda with

wetlands along Rivers Malaba and Mpologoma, rice is widely grown as a commercial crop.

Commercial crops include sugarcane, grown in large scale in the eastern and south-eastern

part of the basin; tobacco, a common cash crop in the eastern/north-eastern part around

Bungoma in Kenya. Coffee is historically an important cash crop in Bududa district, Uganda,

and is found as an additional income source in many other areas.

The existing subsistence agricultural practices within the basin are not sustainable. Soil fertility is

reduced by low fertilizer input and poor farming practices. Cultivation on steep slopes in combination

with degraded soil structures due to poor farming practices has exacerbated soil erosion. There

seems to have been an increase in crop diseases and pests in recent years requiring use of

pesticides even on smallholder farms. There is also unregulated pesticide use by small vegetable

farmers in plots established in wetlands. Despite low input levels, agricultural chemicals can pollute

water. Large amounts may be flushed to rivers in rains or floods after drought periods during which

chemicals can be accumulated and incompletely inactivated in the soil.

When farm size becomes too small to be viable, there are negative impacts on agricultural

production, food security and social welfare, which lead to limited investments in land

improvement. The SMM average farm size is very small; in Bududa and Tororo it is 0.5 acres

(MFPED, 2006) and in Bungoma 0.33 acres.

The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) in Uganda and the National Agricultural

and Livestock Extension Project (NALEP) in Kenya have replaced the traditional agricultural

extension services. Both programmes are demand-driven with more focus on food and

commercial crops production but less on soil and water conservation. However, there has been

a decline in agricultural extension services in both countries.

Livestock production is mainly concentrated in the northern part of the basin although cattle,

goats, sheep and chicken are kept all over the region. The major livestock kept are cattle, goats

and sheep with modest herd sizes (10 in Sio-Kenya and 5 in Sio-Uganda). Traditionally, the



seasonal wetlands were used for grazing. But the massive encroachment by crop production has

strongly reduced the amount of grazing land, resulting in reduction of stock numbers. As a result,

animal husbandry systems have changed considerably from open grazing to zero-grazing.

Irrigation and aquaculture

Irrigation is very limited in the basin and does not seem to be popular even when communities live

on riverbanks. It is however more widespread on the on the Ugandan than on the Kenyan side of

the SMM basin, where existing irrigation in the mid-and upper parts of the catchment is limited to

scattered small plots on which farmers use local streams for traditional micro-irrigation. In the

lower parts of the SMM basin, small-scale irrigation is being practiced within the wetlands.

Aquaculture is a relatively new sector in the area, but is gaining interest as a real income

source. It is currently practiced at a small scale mainly in wetlands. During field visits, highly

profitable examples of integrated aquaculture/aqua-forestry were observed; some with a goat-

shed constructed over a fish pond and providing very affordable manure to grow fish feed,

whereas the bunds of the pond were planted with fodder crops for the goats. The SMM River

Basin Project has also supported small-scale community fishpond development near Busia.

The Ministry of Fisheries (MoF) in Kenya has recently been promoting aquaculture in typically

‘upland’ Districts such as Bungoma West and Teso through the Economic Stimulus Programme

(ESP). The ministry acts as the entrepreneur by installing fish ponds (standard size 15x20m and

about 0.8 m deep), providing Tilapia fingerlings as well as food and nets during the first year,

and linking the farmer with the market. By 2010, a total of 93 fishponds had been established in

Bungoma west and about 200 in Teso district of Kenya.

3.5 Soil degradation

Soil degradation in the SMM basin is linked to soil fertility depletion and soil erosion, long-term

cultivation with diminishing fallow periods, limited crop rotation practices and low fertilizer inputs.

This causes low soil stability and particles are easily transported during rain. Although farmers

are aware of reduced soil fertility and its effects, their capacity and to address the issues is

limited leading to poor yields. Other factors that affect yields include short validity for good

quality seeds, and unreliable and variable rainfall in some areas of the basin, especially during

the short rains.

Much of the SMM Basin is considered to have good potential for agriculture, with medium

elevations (1100 to 1600 m above sea level) having deep, well drained soils, and relatively high

rainfall (1200 - 1800 mm per year) that permits two cropping seasons in some parts. Currently,

crop productivity is very low with typical output from a ‘good’ rainy season being less than 1 ton

of maize per hectare, although the potential is as high as 5 to 6 tons.



Soil erosion

Soil conservation in the eastern Africa region has a long history going back almost 70 years. In

the two East African countries of Uganda and Kenya, the colonial authorities used coercive

approaches to introduce new land-use and conservation methods, such as terracing and forced

destocking, resulting in negative attitudes to conservation. This led to widespread neglect of

conservation work after independence in the early 1960s. By the end of the 1960s, these

countries were experiencing increasing land degradation.

Soil conservation measures include terracing, contours, strip cultivation, ridge and tie ridging,

grass strips, and bands. These methods, introduced during the colonial times, have since been

largely abandoned. In some areas like Mt. Elgon and Manafwa, farmers are destroying the

terraces to expand their cultivation areas, and this has led to disastrous effects on soil erosion.

Recent soil conservation activities in the SMM basi n

The approach followed in soil conservation activities is demand-driven but in practice there is a

compromise between farmers’ request and awareness about what is best for them and the

environment. There is no approach of systematic rehabilitation of degraded catchments as was

in the past time and the range of issues and extension staffing is much reduced.

Farmers’ appreciation of soil conservation varies because of conservation conviction, required

labour inputs, uncertainty about ownership of planted trees, competition for resources and loss

of land (due to terraces). Despite awareness of its importance, river bank protection is sporadic

(including pegging and planting of buffer zones), e.g., in Cheptais and Mt. Elgon District.

Planting of riverbanks is only 66% of the pegged areas

Implementation rates are modest. It is estimated that a total length of terraces of different type

of about 300 km corresponds to a total treated area of about 600 to 900 hectares, distributed

over four districts, which is less than 1% of the total area. The estimate assumes that the

average terracing is about 300 to 500 meters per hectare, corresponding to intervals of 20 to 00

m, not considering trash lines (of stubble and organic residue). These are valuable for

conservation (cheap, contributing to soil enrichment) but their impermanency makes them a

poor index and they add to the competition for resources (cattle feed and fuel).

Constraints other than staffing capacity include:

• Limited operational resources (transport, equipment, extension tools).

• Land ownership uncertainty.

• Political and community natural resources competition.

• Culturally determined natural resource uses.

• Lack of public awareness of soil and watershed values.

• Limited awareness among social leaders and decision makers.



Better implementation recording is necessary and monitoring and evaluation training is required

for Districts officers. In Kenya, field implementations are reported annually to national level

(MoA) using standardised tables. But only the items of work completed are given not the areas

treated, a strategy followed or costs per unit area. There are no maps showing work done

relative to planned treatment. In Uganda, formal recording does not exist and depends on

individual commitment of officers.

3.6 Soil conservation and erosion assessment

As is the case with soil fertility deterioration, soil erosion occurs everywhere in the SMM basin,

even in undulating terrains. Soils on steeper upper slopes have been cultivated for long without

adequate soil conservation measures and clean weeding farming practices. As a result the soil

structure within the upper slopes is more deteriorated leading to more soil erosion than

elsewhere in the basin.

The upper catchment areas of Manafwa District and part of Tororo District on the Uganda side,

and the rolling upper catchment areas of Mt. Elgon, Teso North and Bungoma West Districts on

the Kenyan side are the most severely affected areas. However, land on the Kenyan side is less

eroded because of more intensive soil conservation practices in the past that adhered to the

Agriculture Act (see extract).

In these areas, but also around Busia and Malaba, the regularly occurring pockets with

relatively sandy soils (coarse sandy loam-gravelly sandy loamy) originating in basement rocks,

are especially sensitive to erosion. Erosion decreases towards the south and east, following

slope classes. Isolated hills with relatively steep slopes are also severely affected. These occur

mostly in Teso North and South, in Bungoma, Tororo and some parts of Busia Districts.

ACCORDING TO THE AGRICULTURE ACT:

• On gentle slopes up to 12% terracing is not mandatory, but it is usually desirable on slopes exceeding 5%. In semi-arid areas and in areas with erodible soils, even slopes of 2-5% usually need to be terraced.

• On slopes between 12% and 55%, terraces (preferably developed bench terraces) should be used if the depth of the soil is more than about 0.75m. For very steep slopes modified bench terraces are recommended, i.e. narrow ledges cut into the slope, suitable for fruit trees, fodder trees, forest trees and coffee.

• Slopes exceeding approximately 55% should be covered with grass and/or forest, or used to cultivate tea, sugar cane or bananas with a layer of trash on the ground.

• Soils which are rocky, stony or shallow, should be used for pasture or forest, or else they should have stone terraces

An inventory of places severely affected by erosion has been made, resulting in an erosion

evidence map (MAP 6): The erosion hazard map is shown in MAP 7.



Table 4: Severely erosion-affected areas per district (km2)

KENYA UGANDA DISTRICT AREA IN

SMM ERODED

AREA % DISTRICT AREA IN

SMM ERODED

AREA %

Busia 773.3 15.9 2.1 Bududa 17.4 0 0 Bungoma S 450.7 5.6 1.2 Bugiri 692.3 0 0

Bungoma W 173.4 42.6 24.6 Busia 635.4 0 0 Mt Elgon 292.4 30.2 10.3 Butaleja 234.0 0 0 Teso North 223.6 54.6 24.4 Manafwa 246.5 1.9 0.8 Teso South 331.8 39.8 12.0 Namutumba 246.6 0 0 Mumias 101.3 0 0 Tororo 805.8 56.8 7.0

Riverbank erosion

Expansion of farmland to the riverbanks, coupled with depletion of riverine vegetation, has

made riverbank erosion more severe. There is evidence of erosion in most banks within the

basin, as well as undercutting on outer meander curves where flow velocity is highest.

Undercutting is less widespread than erosion on banks, due to vegetation cover or bedrock in

many places, but where it occurs, it can cause sudden slumps with substantial contribution to

sediment load.

Within the SMM basin, degradation in upper watershed areas has led to an increase in

sediment load and intensity of flash floods. Coarse fractions have caused siltation of incised

riverbeds. This in turn has increased flooding intensity and hence riverbank erosion, which has

further contributed to siltation of beds. The current regulations for riverine buffer zone protection

or replanting prescribe a width of 20-30 m in both Kenya and Uganda (200 m for lake shores in

Uganda), but enforcement of these regulations is poor. Uncontrolled sand collection from

riverbeds and banks in some areas has also led to an increase in erosion.

NEMA has prepared for Kenya in 2007 a document on National Guidelines for Sand Harvesting,

to provide for a system of permits for sand collection to mitigate uncontrolled operations and

defining safe practices. In reality, this document has never been gazetted and the technical and

regulatory arrangements have never been enforced.

All main rivers are in need of riverbank protection, and at least the marking out of non-

cultivatable buffer zones. But identification of separate priority zones is not clear because the

boundary between degraded (encroached) and non-encroached riverbanks is not defined.

This is similar to wetland degradation that shows increasing encroachment moving upstream

from the permanent wetlands in Uganda towards the seasonal wetlands in mid catchment, and

then to the completely cultivated tributary areas.



Roads-induced erosion

Roads are an important and underestimated source of concentrated water flow causing severe

erosion. Erosion either originates along unpaved roads, or in adjacent areas onto which road

drainage spills high velocity runoff. The rolling hills in Teso North (Kenya) and in Manafwa

(Uganda) have typical examples of severe roadside erosion. But roadside erosion in less severe

forms occurs nearly everywhere along unpaved roads.

Rural unpaved roads are built by contractors hired by the Uganda National Roads Authority

(UNRA) and the Kenyan Rural Road Authority, under the Ministry of Roads, or by town councils.

Once drainage water with its sediment load is in a stream, it falls under responsibility of WRMA

in Kenya and directorate of water Development in Uganda. This transition in responsibility from

road management to water management has not been regulated so far.

A road design should have proper drainage provisions, and every road project is supposed to

submit an environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report to NEMA before commencing on any

work. Such requirements are the same in Kenya and Uganda. However, the roads policies do

not put liability on the contractor for damages. In practice, contractors may economise on the

work, enforcement of quality standards may be insufficient and work may be signed off without

adequate quality control. In addition, repair or maintenance is not available.

The situation for feeder and minor roads is similar but ownership and responsibility for

rehabilitation is blurred. Erosion due to high velocity flow from field tracks causes similar

problems.

Environmental implications of erosion

Soil erosion causes water pollution leading to deterioration of aquatic habitats, increases water

treatment costs and clogging of water distribution systems. The washing of nutrients and

organic matter from the rich top soil into streams and rivers is a major cause of eutrophication.

Furthermore, excessive deposition of sediments in rivers, lakes and wetlands has caused

destruction of fish spawning areas. Sediment is also a major pollutant of surface water while at

the same time it is a major carrier of agricultural chemicals into the water systems.

Soil erosion also leads to alteration of landforms, changes in microclimate and interference with

natural habitats. This is a common feature in the highlands of Kenya. On the other hand, high

losses of calcium suggest that erosion is one of the most important factors contributing to the

increase in acidity of soils.



3.7 Priority areas for catchment rehabilitation

Soil erosion evidence / degradation map

An inventory of places severely affected by degradation was made, resulting in an erosion

evidence map, based on information given by district officers. District staffs in the most affected

districts were asked to identify hotspots of erosion and land degradation during a workshop

focused on land degradation. The distribution of the severely erosion-affected areas is given in

Table 6

Soil erosion hazard

A soil erosion hazard map has been prepared by GIS, through superposition of layers for the

basic factors determining erosion hazard: relief and slope class, land cover/land use and soil

erodability.

• Relief and slope class and generalized land cover are taken from the Physiographic Map showing homogenous units in terms of slope, land cover, land use, watershed management challenges.

For the SMM basin, the different units distinguished are shown in Map 7 hereafter.



MAP 5: Physiographic Map

The following physiographic units were distinguished (See MAP 5): C: Very steep volcano slopes (20-50 %), under heather V1: Steep to very steep volcano slopes (20-50 %), under forest V2: Steep to very steep volcano slopes (20-50%), deforested E1: Escarpment (> 50% slopes), bare rocks or forest E2: Escarpment (> 50% slopes), cultivated R: Rolling Hills (10-20% slopes), under cultivation U: Undulating (5-10% slopes), under cultivation G: Gently undulating (0-5% slopes), under cultivation H: Isolated Hills (varying, steep slopes with rock outcrops, often bare) W: Wetlands (seasonal and inundated)



Table 5: EXTENT OF PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNITS (CMU) IN KM2

C V1 V2 E1 E2 R U G H W

KENYA

Bungoma S 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.5 369.4 5.6 64.3

Bungoma W 0 0 0.2 0 0.8 1.9 74.0 90.3 5.0 1.2

Busia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 626.9 16.8 129.6

Mt Elgon 53.4 121.5 34.7 0.5 14.7 30.6 36.2 0.9 0 0

Mumias 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85.6 0 15.7

Teso N 0 0 0 0 0 0 52.4 148.1 14.0 9.0

Teso S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 266.5 27.1 36.2

UGANDA

Bududa 13.6 3.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bugiri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 541.3 0 151.0

Butaleja 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 170.6 0 63.4

Busia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 487.0 0 148.4

Manafwa 0 91.7 5.7 2.8 3.8 24.3 118.1 0.2 0 0

Namutumba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161.5 0 85.1

Tororo 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.4 622.1 12.2 163.1

TOTAL 67 217 40 3 19 56 300 3 570 80 866

�

� Soil erodibility has been rated in three classes ac cording the soil texture :

1: highly erodible: sand, loamy sand

2: medium erodible: loam, sandy loam, gravelly loam

3: moderately erodible: sandy clay loam, clay loam, clay

Then, the soil Erosion Hazard Map results from superposition of the catchment management

units and the soil units with their erodibility rating. The Erosion Hazard Map is shown in MAP 7.

The interpretation Key to determine erosion Hazard is given in Table 9 below.



Table 6: Interpretation Key to determine Erosion Hazard

EROSION HAZARD BY SOIL TEXTURE CLASS PHYSIOGRAPHIC UNIT / LAND COVER

Sand, Loamy Sand, Erodibility

Class 3

Loam, Erodibility Class 2

(Sandy) Clay Loam; Clay, Erodibility Class 1

C Very steep volcano slopes (20-50%), under heather 2 1 0

V1 Steep to very steep volcano slopes (20-50 %), under forest

0 0 0

V2 Steep to very steep volcano slopes (20-50%), deforested

3 2 1

E1 Escarpment (> 50% slopes), bare rocks or forest 0 0 0

E2 Escarpment (> 50% slopes), cultivated 4 3 2

R Rolling Hills (10-20% slopes), under cultivation 3 2 1

U Undulating (5-10% slopes), under cultivation 2 1 0

G Gently Undulating (0-5% slopes), under cultivation 1 1 0

H Isolated Hills (varying steep slopes) 3 2 1

W Wetlands (seasonal and inundated) 1 0 0

Key: 0 = No Risk; 1 = Slight Risk; 2 = Moderate Risk; 3 = High Risk; 4 = Severe Risk

Comparison of erosion hazard and erosion evidence

Erosion hazard and erosion evidence follow similar patterns, with slope class and deforestation

as the two dominant factors increasing severity of erosion. The erosion hazard map shows

areas with highest sensitivity to degradation by erosion while the erosion evidence map shows

areas most affected by erosion and therefore having a priority for rehabilitation.

Table 7: Areas under eROSION RISKS PER DISTRICT (IN KM2)

KENYA EROSION RISK UGANDA EROSION RISK

District 0 1 2 3 4 District 0 1 2 3 4

Busia 99.0 238.4 419.1 14.5 2.3 Bududa 0 17.4 0 0 0

Bungoma S 59.6 68.5 305.5 11.5 5.6 Bugiri 151.8 48.9 490.9 0 0.7

Bungoma W 1.2 4.6 93.1 69.8 2.7 Busia 128.2 110.6 396.6 0 0

Mt Elgon 0 177.2 3.5 33.6 78.1 Butaleja 63.0 28.5 142.5 0 0

Teso N 8.6 23.1 128.0 56.5 7.3 Manafwa 0 94.9 0.3 124.7 26.6

Teso S 38.1 114.2 141.0 19.7 18.9 Namutumba 84.3 13.8 148.4 0 0

Mumias 15.4 0.7 85.2 0 0 Tororo 164.0 113.1 481.0 47.8 0

TOTAL 221.9 626.7 1,175.4 205.6 114.9 164.0 113.1 481.0 47.8 27.3

0 = No Risk; 1 = Slight Risk; 2 = Moderate Risk; 3 = High Risk; 4 = Severe Risk



Erosion evidence observed on isolated hills appears to be more severe than the erosion hazard

maps would predict. This is probably because in estimating the hazard, soils were considered to

be very gravelly on soil-denuded hills, which reduces soil erodibility. Medium to severe erosion

evidence also occurs in a few areas where erosion hazard was rated low because of relatively

gentle slopes. An example is the area north of Malakisi town (Kolanya and Chagara Hills).

Erosion hazard derivations have not identified a few areas on Mount Elgon where in fact

deforestation has caused severe erosion.

MAP 6: Erosion evidence map within the SMM basin



MAP 7: Erosion Hazard Map

3.8 Wetland degradation

Wetland degradation in the watershed

A wetland map has been prepared for the purpose of locating places needing ongoing

management (See next page). The map is designed as an ongoing GIS tool that allows for

alteration and additions as may be required to keep it up to date. It is difficult to mark precisely

the limit between degraded and non-degraded wetlands, especially in the case of seasonal

wetlands. This is mainly because the limit between the original natural wetland and uplands is

not known anymore, but also because definitions of these limits are not conclusive. For practical

purposes, all areas marked as seasonal wetland and now used as farmland (crops or

grassland, or substantial irrigated cropland) are considered as degraded wetlands.

For practical purposes all areas marked as seasonal wetland and now used as farmland (crops

or grassland, or substantial irrigated cropland) are considered as degraded wetlands.

The extent of wetland types per districts are given in table here after:



Table 8: EXTENTS OF WETLANDS TYPES PER DISTRICT

KENYA

DISTRICT PAPY

-RUS

FULLY

ENCROACHED

FLOOD

PLAIN

MIXED

HERBAC

EOUS

OPEN

WATER RICE

RIVERINE

WETLAND

MIXED

HERB.

WOOD-

LAND

TOTAL

Busia 23.3 21.5 20.2 1.0 29.5 4.0 99.4

Bungoma S 24.3 16.6 34.9

Bungoma W 0.9 2.6 3.5

Mt Elgon 5.7 0.2 5.9

Teso N

Teso S 19.6 6.8 1.0 27.3

Mumias 4.4 8.9 13.2

UGANDA

DISTRICT PAPY

-RUS

FULLY

ENCROACHED

FLOOD

PLAIN

MIXED

HERBAC

EOUS

OPEN

WATER RICE

RIVERINE

WETLAND

MIXED

HERB.

WOOD-

LAND

TOTAL

Bududa

Bugiri 57.7 37.4 3.1 4.6 12.4 13.7 128.9

Busia 18.2 54.8 5.2 17.2 95.5

Butaleja 49.0 12.3 3.5 64.8

Manafwa

Namutumba 48.9 13.0 61.8

Tororo 41.5 35.9 26.4 0.01 103.8

TOTAL 238.3 229.8 8.3 100.9 13.4 13.7 30.5 4.0 638.9



MAP 8: Occurrence of wetlands within the SMM Basin

3.9 Forest degradation

Overview of forest degradation

Forest degradation occurs when either large tracks of forest are removed without re-planting,

replaced with unsuitable species, or significant alteration of species composition. Forest



degradation indicators are; deforestation, fragmentation and reduced species diversity. Among

the major threats to forest ecosystems in Kenya and Uganda are encroachment by settlements

or agriculture, illegal logging, excision, charcoal production, livestock grazing and subdivision of

land. These factors negatively affect forests provision of goods and services, and their capacity

to provide important sources of sustainable livelihoods.

In the Mt Elgon ecosystem, one can identify deforestation either through appearance of clear-

cut patches within an existing forest or complete removal of forest cover.

Deforestation (for timber and charcoal) and clearing of natural vegetation to make way for farm

land is a serious problem already for a long time. In addition, the majority of the people in the

basin depend on biomass for energy and as a result more land areas are being cleared due to

over-exploitation of forest products, especially fuel wood and charcoal for cooking. Apart from

continued deforestation, the problem of land degradation is also increased by insufficient

reforestation activities and/or agro-forestry practice and lack of alternative sources of energy as

people continue to depend on fuel wood and charcoal.

An ICRAF study in Nyando River Basin (ICRAF 2005) found that conversion of

forest to grass and cropland over the last century has been the major factor

contributing to decline in soil fertility and soil physical condition, and increased

soil erosion. Compared to forest and bushland, areas dominated by grass and

crops are 16 times more likely to be affected by severe erosion.

Compared to stable reference soils, crops grown on eroded soils had an 8%

higher chance of crop failure and a 30-40% reduction in crop yields.

Depositional areas had lower risk of crop failure and higher yields compared to

reference soils. A key contributor to soil degradation is the loss of ground

cover. Re-establishment of trees and contact ground cover are needed to

control soil erosion in fast eroding areas, and to prevent soil erosion in slowly

eroding areas.

Biomass Exploitation is happening all across the basin and is driven by the rapid population

growth in the area. The extremely high population density renders it impossible to leave the

mandatory 30 m band of land along the river banks for the protection of the rivers, the main

drivers being that people do not have alternative land.

In an effort to counteract deforestation, NFA in Uganda and KFS in Kenya are strongly

promoting small scale afforestation in woodlots and homesteads, and replanting of degraded



areas in forest reserves (Mount Elgon National Park/Forest Reserve and Busitema forest

reserve).

Kenya has even issued a decree prescribing that 10 % of each farm holding should be planted

with trees. Enforcement of this decree will be difficult as numerous households with very small

land holdings need all of it for their subsistence food production. It is not clarified how

homestead planting or living hedges around plots are counted.

NFA in Uganda is trying to mitigate degradation impacts in Busitema forest in cooperation with

World Vision. Activities include

• community tree planting to reduce pressure on the reserve,

• sensitising residents on collaborative forest management and on alternative sources of

energy like energy-saving stoves, saying this will reduce the use of firewood and

charcoal,

• forest rehabilitation by replanting bathedavia (Indian Mvule) on the 28 hectares of trees

that were cut down in Bulumbi.

Challenges are still remaining as residents’ motivation for planting trees appears limited due to

the proximity of the forest. Also, guidance on proper use of the forest is said to be insufficient.

Mount Elgon ecosystem degradation

The vegetation of Mt. Elgon reflects the altitudinal controlled zonal belts commonly associated

with large mountain massifs. Four broad vegetation communities are recognized i.e. open

woodland, tropical moist forest, bamboo and afro-alpine zones that are above the bamboo

zone. Juniperus procera, Hagenia abyssinica, Olea welwitschii, O. hotstetteri, Prunus africana,

Podocarpus falcatus and P. latifolia dominate the moist tropical forest. Moorlands, swamps and

rocks form a major part of the afro-alpine zone.

The Mount Elgon ecosystem has suffered considerably from overexploitation and depletion of

resources. Mt. Elgon Forest is under the threat of destruction caused by unsustainable human

activities, including illegal logging, charcoal burning, arsonist fires and clearance of parts of the

forest for human settlement. The forest, which used to occupy more than half of the entire Elgon

district in Kenya, has now reduced to almost a third of the land surface.

Despite high rates of deforestation in surrounding areas, the southern edge of the Mount Elgon

forest massive in the SMM basin has relatively remained in place during the last decades,

whereas large-scale deforestation specially occurred on the Ugandan side. The Kenya Wildlife

Service (KWS) and the Kenya Forestry Service (KFS) use a system that allows local

communities to access the park and to receive non-wood ecosystem benefits from the forest. In

Kenya, these arrangements do not allow access to timber or charcoal burning. In Uganda

however, there exists a slightly more relaxed policy where the local communities can satisfy



their needs with ecosystem goods and/or services from the park, but only upon signed

agreements with the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA).

The southern boundary of the Mt Elgon forest reserve (within the SMM basin) is marked by cliff-

like escarpments, which are very steep in the Lwakhakha sub-catchment (western side) but

becoming less steep in Malakisi sub-catchment (eastern side). Comparison between the

topographic maps (made from 1967 aerial photography) and 2003 SPOT imagery of Goggle

Earth shows a recession to the north of the forest boundary in many sections, but at a much

slower rate than in other parts of the Reserve. In the upper Lwakhakha (Malaba) sub-

catchment, the recession varies between 1 and 2 km over a period of about 35 years. In the

Malakisi upper catchment, the forest boundary has not changed over a wide area.

The forest boundary has however shifted northwards (i.e. backwards) over a distance of about 6

to 8 km in a large rectangular area of 10 to 11 km wide, starting about 2 to 3 km before the

eastern boundary of Malakisi catchment. This block of deforestation translates to an estimated

loss of 56-60 km2 of forest. This area was degazetted and earmarked for resettlement of people

living within the forest reserve. This action has had limited success as people have continued

encroaching into the forests.

On the Kenyan side, in Cheptais and Mount Elgon Divisions, which contain 50,866 ha of forest

land, about 52% (26,639 ha) is still under High forest (productive and protective), and 23%

(11,480 ha) under bamboo. Another 17% (8,702 ha) and 8% (4,047 ha) had been deforested in

the recent past and have now turned into secondary bushland and grassland respectively In the

Ugandan side, the National Forest Authority has prepared a National Land Cover Changes

Map, showing that areas west of Mount Elgon have been affected much more by deforestation

than other areas within the basin.



CHAPTER 4. Intervention Strategy

4.1 Overall Strategy

The intervention strategy for the integrated management of the watershed is based on the

watershed characterization, sector assessment, identification and location of the major land

degradation and assessment of the current capacities (in terms of human resources and means)

of institutions and diverse stakeholders identified to be potentially involved in the project.

Although the SMM basin is facing a number of challenges, resource degradation in most cases

is not irreversible and if timely actions are taken, degradation processes can be mitigated or

even put to a standstill. Pollution can be controlled or even avoided. Options remain for both

water and land resources development. Management of resources can be improved.

An integrated package of actions is required to rehabilitate and safeguard resources in the

watershed and to provide sustained equitable access to these resources for its inhabitants. In

addition, important trans-boundary hydrological/ecological services need to be ensured.

Sustained access to water resources needs to imply respecting of downstream wetland

management interests, both within the SMM basin and in downstream areas (Lake Victoria and

Lake Kyoga).

In other words, while using water to meet development needs, reduction of flows into Lake

Kyoga and Lake Victoria needs to be minimized.

Achievements to this regard will ultimately affect watershed conditions and hence improve

development opportunities in the entire downstream areas in the Nile basin.

A guiding principle should be conservation-based development . It underlines that we want

to go further than control of resource degradation, since the ultimate goal of investment is to

achieve profitable development. Opportunities exist and are exploited to combine the two

aspects of degradation control and development. These are most explicit in community-based

resource management (CBRM), as to be practiced in catchment rehabilitation and in wetland

management. In fact, the combination of resource productivity aspects (as the economic

development component) and protection aspects (as the environmental component) is

indispensable to motivate local communities to improve their livelihoods in a way that is more

profitable to them and in the same time is providing better protection of the resource base.

The integrated package of required actions, together with the guiding principle of conservation-

based development automatically lead to the overall objective formulated for the IWMP.



In background to all project activities is the intention to act in support to local communities

and existing groups , which will be the actors in time to implement the Watershed Management

actions. This is why they have been consulted during the project formulation process, with their

recommendations and requests taken into account to the major possible extent. The sub-

projects have been tailored for strengthening the farmers groups – under the names of

Community Forest Associations, Community Forest User Groups, Farmer Field Schools,

Wetlands Management Committees and any other Community Based Organisation – and for

implementation through them, particularly in rural areas.

The overall objective for the IWMP is to:

“Achieve equitable and sustained access to good qua lity water resources and to

productive land resources for the variety of users, as drivers for sustainable

development ”

The term integrated is used to emphasize the interrelationship of actions and the subsequent

interaction of their results. Different actions could be taken in isolation, but the cumulative

profitability will increase if other related actions are taken as well. The following examples are

illustrative:

�� The profitability of water development will be reduced if water quality can not be put up to

standard, and vice versa.

�� Health risks due to poor sanitation undermine the capacity of people to engage in

development activities.

�� The profitability of increased water availability through water resource development will be

higher if easy access to these new resources is also facilitated.

Actions to be taken considerably vary in character. At one end of the range are the straight-

forward, easily quantifiable and well localized, engineering works, which can be implemented

rapidly and will have direct results? Solid waste management and storm water drainage systems

in main towns are in this category.

At the other end of the range, actions concern larger areas of uplands and wetlands or long

stretches of river courses (catchment rehabilitation and wetland management). With increasing

population and land pressure, treatment and management of these areas has grown far beyond

the operational capacity of government agencies. Conservation on the basis of gazetment or

protective regulation has become ineffective as enforcement is highly deficient.



The only alternative is to mobilize the massive human resources available within local

communities for community-based resource management. Empowerment, project ownership

and participatory planning are indispensable ingredients in this approach. These require a time

consuming process of intensive communication, extension, training and community organization

efforts as preparation to implementation. Commitment of communities to improved land

husbandry has to be based on short term profitability. Subsistence farmers have a conservative

attitude towards innovations. Their livelihood security is based on a short term survival strategy,

and earlier experiences with innovations brought by “outsiders” have not always been positive.

The implication of this will be that, contrarily to the above engineering works, it will take some

time before tangible results of improved resource development can be observed. However, once

results are tangible and appreciated by local communities, further dissemination will spread in an

accelerated way. In addition, the stronger the basis of community organization and commitment

to CBRM, the greater sustainability of innovations will be achieved.

The varying character of actions to be taken implies a different approach and implementation

strategy for each action. Similarly, different stakeholders will be consulted, sensitized and

engaged, and different institutional arrangements will be required for each action. These will be

specified for each individual activity and investment proposal.

Concept of integrated watershed management

The issue that needs to be addressed in any integrated Water Resource Management is that of

integrating the needs of the people living within the river basin and the environmental needs of

the basin. This is complicated by the frequent conflict between private and public goods. In the

Sio-Malaba-Malakisi for example we need to reduce deforestation which is leading to increased

erosion, soil loss and turbidity of the river; it is clearly good, for both the environment and for

everyone living along the river, to reduce the erosion with the consequent soil loss and water

turbidity. So to reduce deforestation produces benefits for the general population along the river;

this is a public good. For people living in the upper catchment with access to forested land it may

well make good economic sense to plunder the forested area for wood and charcoal which can

produce an income stream and leave them financially better off; this is a private good and it is

perfectly rational for them to do this. They are putting their own economic welfare above that of

the greater good. There is nothing odd in this; it is how a free market economy works.

It is the conflict between the public and private goods that is the cause of:

�� Deforestation

�� Soil erosion

�� Pollution of the rivers



�� Improper solid waste disposal

�� Increased flash floods and landslides

�� Loss of wetlands

Regulation of the activities of the population of the river basin and the production of planning

documents that fail to recognize the dichotomy outlined above will not solve any of these

problems. An integrated approach that identifies mutually desirable goals can be the only way

forward. What needs to be addressed is how to improve the livelihoods of the people in a way

that also leads to a more environmentally sustainable river basin. Regulation and planning can

play a part in this but the individuals involved must see this in the context of improvement in

their own welfare.

Agriculture, agroforestry, livelihood and managemen t

In general terms, we are looking at a poor rural population of small farmers, many of whom eke

out their on-farm income by fishing, collecting and selling firewood and raising some cattle and

goats. Just feeding the family and providing basic needs is the most that the majority of them

are able to achieve. One characteristic of small famers living barely above subsistence level is

their aversion to risk. To engage in anything, such as trying a new crop or a way of farming they

are unfamiliar with carries with it a perceived risk of failure with consequences that can be seen

as devastating. This manifests itself within the project area as low yield farming and any

increase in output being seen in terms of increasing the area under cultivation rather than an

increase in productivity from the existing area of the land or a change of crops.

Experiences from Central Kenya, where there is evidence o f high productivity, high profits, and

good land management, indicate that poverty reduction, land degradation, and sustainable

agriculture are intricately linked. Adoption of an ecosystem management, approach focusing on:

participatory planning of land use and natural resources management at the village, local, district,

watershed and county levels; empowerment of communities with proven technology, information

and financial resources to make the best investment decisions; and dissemination of a good

ecosystem management techniques (e.g. improved soil fertility, erosion control etc,), are crucial to

address problems of natural resource degradation and achieve sustainable farming systems.

Better farming practices also provide global environmental benefits. The “Land-use, Land-use

change, Forestry Report (2000) of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has

identified the conversion of degraded crop lands into agroforestry as the land-use practice with

the largest potential to sequester carbon. Improved practices united under the name of

Conservation Agriculture are also known to increase farmers’ resilience to Climate Change.



4.2 Main issues to be addressed

There are a number of problems that apply to the river basin. All these problems are, at least to

a certain extent, interlinked, so that one specific problem can hardly be resolved or even

properly addressed without facing other related issues. To give a clearer and conceptually

better view to these problems, the following sections present the issues, as well as the

corresponding proposed activities, sorted out into three basic action lines: actions towards

environmental protection, actions towards livelihood improvement, and actions supporting

better natural resources management process. Yet of course these three criteria are not

independent from one another, and their “boundaries” are not explicitly marked: actions for

environmental protection require an organisational and institutional support; livelihood

improvement must be attained in the respect of environmental protection; monitoring social

progress will involve livelihood status and management process… Even so, the sorting of all

the main issues - and corresponding project activities - along the three criteria above appeared

as the best solution to prepare for Integrated Natural Resources Management.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Deforestation

One point that has an impact over most of the river basin is the use of wood for fuel and

charcoal production. In this moment the largest source of energy for daily life is wood, either

from forest areas or from isolated trees and shrubs, and the growing demand endangers the

forest cover and biomass in general. The main response to this issue must be reversing the

current trend by promoting afforestation of areas with limited agricultural potential (particularly

where slope are marked) and agroforestry to combine planting of trees (for wood but also for

fruit production) with other crops. This is the central action expected in the context of Integrated

Watershed management, because of the combination of actions and outcomes involved.

Additional actions at other levels can also be recommended to moderate the deforestation

process. An approach can be found through alternative sources of energy . A step forward

here would be to increased electricity coverage from the 5 percent coverage at present to

cover a far greater percentage of the people in the basin, through Kenya Power (KPLC) in

Kenya and Rural Electrification Agency (REA) in Uganda. Possible solutions may involve

developing the mini-hydro potential of the basin particularly by the utilization of dams that are in

existence but may well need rehabilitation. Installation of solar panels at household level may

also bring alleviation of the pressure on wood. An additional approach, far easier to implement

and indeed already supported by NGOs and other institutions, is to promote the use of fuel

efficient stoves. This approach could also reduce the demand for wood and charcoal.



Land and natural resources degradation

Soil degradation in the SMM basin is linked to soil fertility depletion and soil erosion, long-term

cultivation with diminishing fallow periods, limited crop rotation practices and low fertilizer inputs.

This causes low soil stability and particles are easily transported during rain. Although farmers

are aware of reduced soil fertility and its effects, their capacity to address the issues is limited,

leading to poor yields.

Much of the SMM Basin is considered to have good potential for agriculture, with medium

elevations (1100 to 1600 m above sea level) having deep, well drained soils, and relatively high

rainfall (1200 - 1800 mm per year) that permits two cropping seasons in some parts. Currently,

crop productivity is very low with typical output from a ‘good’ rainy season being less than 1 ton

of maize per hectare, although the potential is as high as 5 to 6 tons.

As is the case with soil fertility deterioration, soil erosion occurs everywhere in the SMM basin,

even in undulating terrains. Soils on steeper upper slopes have been cultivated for long without

adequate soil conservation measures and clean weeding farming practices. As a result the soil

structure within the upper slopes is more deteriorated leading to more soil erosion than

elsewhere in the basin.

The upper catchment areas of Manafwa District and part of Tororo District on the Uganda side,

and the rolling upper catchment areas of Mt. Elgon, Teso North and Bungoma West Districts on

the Kenyan side are the most severely affected areas.

Water quality degradation and increase of sedimenta tion

The water quality in the SMM is affected by deforestation, intense cultivation (with increasing

removal of vegetation cover and soil loss), cultivation of riverbanks, poor solid waste

management, wetland degradation, over-exploitation of biomass, high population density and

growth rates, poor sanitation, land fragmentation, water pollution (surface water and

groundwater), flooding, widespread extraction of sand and clay for construction, settlement

(particularly along the river flood plains) and urban development (where the towns located

along the river banks are not provided with sewerage system).

As a consequence of the above pollution sources, the common water quality problems with the

SMM Rivers are poor colour, high turbidity and silt load, and high faecal coliform content.

Waste disposal and storm water drainage and wastewa ter treatment

Solid and human waste disposal polluting the rivers can be divided into two parts, waste from

urban areas and waste from rural areas. Dealing with urban waste is most easily dealt with and

is largely an issue of finding the money to deal with it and management of the sewerage and

waste disposal. Within the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi basin there are already resources being

allocated towards this and this feasibility study will recommend the allocation of more. Nothing



in urban waste disposal is inherently complex nor does it require much selling to the targeted

population. The one thing that particularly requires more effort is storm water drainage and

wastewater treatment.

Pool Rural Sanitation

Within the rural areas open defecation is still practised, causing faecal coliform pollution in the

watercourses. The impact of such practices has not been severe during long times, but with the

increasing demographic pressure caused by population density growth throughout the basin,

combined with the decrease of the vegetal cover to process the organic load, the problem is

turning into a serious concern. It should not require too much effort to implement a WATSAN

project with the obvious benefit to both health and dignity of the communities involved.

All of the above involves a commitment of resources. If people sense that there is a real

interest in their welfare, if subprojects are identified that improve welfare and health and

increase income through lower medical expense and lower number of sick person-days, and

then implemented with community participation; then areas that require attention but which

have benefits outside of the community might be able to attract attention and support. An

approach that only emphasises environment and the common good however is almost certainly

doomed to failure.

Climate Change

Integrated ecosystem management approaches will draw on agroforestry and other land

management techniques that also deliver benefits in the area of carbon sequestration. The PCC

estimates of carbon accumulation rates range from 2 to 9 MT/ha/year, depending on the climate

and the nature of the agroforestry practice. Although an important factor in reducing global

levels o f Greenhouse Gases (GHG), the potential for carbon sequestration is generally ignored

at national and local levels in developing countries. Project activities incorporating carbon

benefits have the potential to link global climate change priorities to local initiatives.

Diversification of crops and sources of income also increase the farmers’ resilience to climate

change.

INCOME GENERATION

Income and welfare

The project is rated as a poverty alleviation project, so the first issue is one of income; if we are

to deal with the issues of natural resources management it has to be in the context of raising

individual income and welfare. It is the actions of the people within the basin which are the

primary cause of the issues to be addressed. Desirable changes can come about only if



individuals see it as being of direct benefit to them. Any argument about “the greater good” is

unlikely to lead to change in behaviour.

The solution to the issue of low output levels from smallholder farming leading to encroachment

of ever expanding areas of land must be to shift from extensive low yield farming to intensive

higher yield farming so the farmer is able to increase the on-farm income without expanding the

area of land farmed. In addition, other sources of income will need to be identified.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Sharing knowledge

Some knowledge gaps remain, especially in relation to water resources management: These

would be alleviated by extension of the water monitoring network (described under Supportive

activity 4C).

Action coordination

As explained above, the proposed IWMP will not be unique responsible for all actions actually

required in the basin. This is because other parties are already following up prevailing issues. It

is stressed again that most actions are interlinked. Omission of certain actions may reduce the

profitability of others. Similarly, delayed results in one action may hamper planning of other

actions. It is referred to the example of an improved water monitoring network and data base

preparation, results of which are needed for planning of water resource management actions,

e.g. by WRUAs in sub-catchment management planning.

These constraints can probably be minimized if the same PMU follows up on implementation of

awarded investment proposals and can assist in harmonized timing of implementations.

Legal and regulatory framework

The IWMP will be confronted with a few constraints, described in the stakeholder analysis. Both

participating countries have shown general preparedness to cooperate in trans-boundary

issues. However, implementation activities on the ground touching contiguous areas on either

side of the border may be hampered by incompatibility in regulations or incompatibility in

directives through national level projects. People being stopped from environmentally damaging

activities on one side of the border may move to the other side and cause damage there if

regulations are less severe.

If legislation is difficult to change in a short term, the IWMP project could assist in formulating

local bye-laws to achieve compatibility in regulations.



Definition of wetland areas

Delineation of wetland units has an intrinsic constraint. Determination of wetland types and their

extent is bound to be tentative. A significant proportion of wetlands are classified as seasonal.

Under the peculiarities of the climatic regime their seasonality is irregular. Besides, due to long

term encroachment, the natural status of wetlands is uncertain. A wetland rehabilitation option

would often pose problems, because ecologically it is not clear what it is to rehabilitate. In

addition, most gross area estimates of wetlands in both Kenya and Uganda are based on aerial

surveys done for topographical maps. The extent of such wetter areas in these maps is often

sociologically defined by a local community customary usage rather than by clear ecological

features.

For the purpose of this study, delineation of wetlands is done as a compromise between the

units shown on the topographic maps, and those identified from Google Earth™ imagery.

Additional sub-sectors

Despite efforts to comprehensively address all watershed issues in the SMM basin, a few sub-

sectors remain for which more complete measures are still expected. They can be given a place

within the current programme, or be developed separately. These are related mainly to water

sanitation and rural water supply, groundwater development and hydropower.

Water supply and sanitation are key development indicators, and are among the highest

Government priorities in both countries, with good budgetary allocations. Yet as of now their

coverage is still unsatisfactory in the basin, in particular in rural areas and more so in Uganda

than in Kenya. Poor sanitation conditions are one of the two main non-point sources of pollution

and would deserve much more attention than feasible with the limited time for the study and

available specializations in the study team. Inadequate efforts to this regard will jeopardize

results of other activities of water pollution control. As a start, stronger lobbying could help to

have more towns included in subsequent phases of KfW-funded water supply projects – the

border towns of Busia and Malaba are proposed for inclusion in the programme.

In general terms, the basins of Sio and Malaba rivers are not endowed with important

groundwater resources because of the geology and soils types of the area. Yet limited amounts

of water are available for local use at household level mainly. Programmes are being

implemented for development of groundwater through spring protection and drilling of shallow

and deep wells. Part of the shallow groundwater resources is easily threatened by pollution from

the common non-point sources of chemical pollution (agricultural chemicals and poor

sanitation); deeper ground water reportedly is of good quality in most cases. It appears that the

role of groundwater in the overall hydrological system is neither well known nor quantified,

which limits their sustainable development in areas in which such possibilities may exist.

Additional studies on productivity of ground water resources would help in improving water



balance, e.g. for the purpose of water supply development, or with regard to the potential for

groundwater recharge, with the different alternative techniques collected under the general

name of Rain Water Harvesting.

Hydro-electric Power (HEP) capacity could probably be increased, as an alternative source of

energy to alleviate the pressure on wood and biomass ingeneral. In the “Reservoir Study”, 7

sites for mini-hydropower generation considered in its preliminary list of sites for evaluation

(Sono, Muhanda, Malakisi, Kitabisi, Bokimaswa, Bunjosi and Butinga) have been eliminated

from further analysis, and could be evaluated in more depth. The only dam site currently under

Feasibility Study in the SMM basin is Maira, which does not rank among the most promising for

hydropower production as per the Reservoir Study, but for which implementation is much

easier, because of the lower investment cost, on one side, and on the limited social and

environmental impact (due to the extension of the reservoir) on the other side. Potential for

micro-HEP stations may be investigated, together with a regulatory framework for placing these

micro-HEP plants under management, operation and maintenance by the local authorities

instead of the state-run enterprises.

4.3 Sustainability of achievements

The present proposals are formulated for a limited period of time, i.e. for a first phase of 5 years.

It should be noted that activities under the CRMP (project investment 1) and the Wetland

Management Project (project investment 4) would have to continue for much longer periods in

order to have a noticeable and sustainable impact on the watershed conditions. An agreement

in principle from donors on possible longer-term commitments is more or less a prerequisite for

successful implementation.

The first phase implementations in CRMP and Wetland Management, are expected to produce

noticeable impact at local level, but this will be an impact in a limited area of the SMM basin

only, and will not be sufficient to fully achieve the IWM objectives. Implementation in the first

phase, with the established institutional network and operational momentum, will act as a lever

for up-scaling during following phases. On the contrary, given the magnitude of the problem of

degrading resources in the SMM basin as a whole, termination of implementation after the first

phase, would very likely have repercussions on stakeholders motivation to carry on without

external support in remaining priority areas. In that case, impact in the SMM basin as a whole

will not be satisfactory.

The CRMP project and Wetland Management project are therefore proposed as a long term

project (15-20 years) with a first phase of five years. The focus of a second and third phase

would be on further upscaling of implementations and thus impact on overall environmental

conditions. Detailed contents of second and third phases should be based on lessons learned



from the success and failure experienced in the first phase, building on the results of the project

Monitoring and Evaluation.

Maintenance of on-site implementations and their impacts on resource conservation would be

taken care of by the farmers as increased productivity is, first of all, in their interest.

The Solid Waste Management Master Plans provide for operation and maintenance, in the

short, medium and long term.

The Storm Water Drainage Master Plans include recommendations for maintenance

responsibilities. These will still have to be materialized by the Town/County Councils.

4.4 Scope of the Project Proposal

The IWMP project proposal is composed as an integrated package of sector projects and sub-

projects comprising complementary projects targeting a specific sector of intervention in the

watershed:

�� Afforestation/reforestation

�� Agriculture and Agroforestry practices and

�� Soil and water conservation practices

�� River bank protection

�� Wetland management

�� Solid waste and storm water drainage management

Each and every project or sub-project is considered under a triple focus, which aims at realising

the objectives:

•••• A focus on the Environmental Conservation of the watershed and wetlands,

which is a major long-term concern addressed by the programmes for the Nile

Basin in general;

•••• A focus on Income Generation , to address the immediate needs of the

inhabitants and also to ensure their participation in the conservation process;

•••• A focus on Institutional Strengthening , including creation and operation of local

organisations, capacity building, care of social stability and gender issues, to

increase the chances of sustainability of the efforts in conservation and livelihood

improvement.

Additional Supportive Activities are presented for funding. These are catering for watershed

management actions (studies, fund allocation) deemed necessary for the achievement of

specific objectives for the entire IWMP.



Past or current on-going projects are occurring in the watershed and the IWMP has to be

implemented in coordination and complementarity with them to ensure a fluent continuity vis-a-

vis community involvement.

4.5 Planning Horizons

The first implementation phase for investments, object of the current study, will have duration of

5 years. Proposed costs estimates and breakdown concern only this first investment phase.

Following phases of implementation are also suggested, for which cost estimates have not yet

been made, showing that

�� the Conservation Agriculture Project would require the longest total input to have full

impact on watershed conditions, probably 20 years,

�� Catchment Rehabilitation and Wetland Management activities would reach full results with

a total investment period of 10-15 years,

Implementation of the physical infrastructure part of the Bungoma town Storm Water Drainage

Master Plan can be effectuated in a short time frame; putting into practice the related

maintenance procedures would require about two years.

For Lwakhaka town (Kenyan and Ugandan part), an outline has been produced for a Storm

Water Drainage Master Plan. Preparation of the final plan requires more detailed topographic

surveys. Surveys and final planning can both be undertaken shortly, after which the plan and

related maintenance procedures can be implemented.

The Solid Waste Management Master Plan for Bungoma town and Lwakhaka (Kenya and

Uganda) provides for implementation and maintenance during the first five years. The plans

also include projections for the mid-term (6-10 years) and longer term (11-15 years).

Cost estimates include preparatory action for a few activities: two components of the CRMP and

three supportive activities to the IWMP. The duration of eventual implementation is tentatively

indicated, but cost estimates depend on findings of these activities.

For the purpose of financial or economical analysis, the benefits have been considered over a

period of 20 years compared to the 5 years investment period. If further investments are

realised, the additional or marginal benefits will need to be considered separately.



CHAPTER 5. Institutional Setup and Arrangements

5.1 Institutional setup

Transboundary cooperation in watershed management or river basin management is the result

of a long term process of consultation and negotiation. In the case of SMM basin, much of the

higher level preparatory work has already been done within the NBI framework (SMM

Cooperative Framework Studies).

Crucial to the success of transboundary management are:

�� political willingness,

�� a thoroughly formulated agreement,

�� full transparency in data exchange.

Political willingness is proven by the fact that both partner countries are signatory to the NBI,

and that several studies are undertaken. On the contrary, at other levels, the stakeholder

analysis also observed a contradiction between ambitious policies and very limited budgets to

put these into practice, and between elaborate environmental legislation but low enforcement.

Evaluation of previous transboundary projects like MERECP highlight difficulties related to

institutional arrangement for an effective implementation on field.

Among others difficulties are linked to:

�� The complexity coming from the involvement of several institutions and subsequent heavy

bureaucracy with consequent delays;

�� A lack of communication between the implementing agencies and the communities who

are the most important target group;

�� The concentration of management and implementation responsibility at the district level

instead of village level.

With its specific characteristics of being transboundary, the Sio-Malaba–Malakisi Watershed

project needs to fit in a institutional set-up that can guarantee at the same time a high quality of

coordination among the partner countries, and a good level of independence for each of them in

their operation and timing, to harmonize regional, national and local objectives and priorities.



Another relevant aspect of the institutional set-up is the intention, from both governments, to

support decentralization and local level decision-making.

The sensitivity of the balance between authority of national institutions (Ministries in first place)

and strong coordination ensuring transboundary decisions leads the Consultant to propose two

alternative solutions to deal with objectives and constraints.

• The first option is more oriented towards using existing institutions at national level and

future mechanisms for transboundary watershed management, and integrating the

Project in the structure of the governmental agencies from the state level to the district

and local level.

• The second option, prioritizing transboundary cooperation for implementation and

integrating the governmental agencies in the mechanism, is more focused on

effectiveness of implementation at the district/sub-county and lower local levels; the

intention is to avoid possible delays due to heavy bureaucratic process through the full

scale of administration in each country.

5.2 Stakeholders Mapping

Proposals for project institutional organization are based on a participative identification of main

stakeholders to be involved in the investment program by sub-projects.

Identification has been made during workshops with technical officers from the two countries.

Stakeholders are ranked in 3 categories of decreasing importance as presented in the tables

here-after. Projects being mainly composed with community based activities; CBOs, as

important target group, are systematically mentioned as main stakeholders of rank 1.

Table 9: Involvement of main stakeholders in SMM-IWMP in Kenya

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS KENYA PROJECT/SUB-PROJECT MAIN ACTIVITIES

Overall Design Impl M&E

1 CATCHMENT CONSERVATION

Afforestation Forest rehabilitation programs ; operational capacity building for forest management/rehabilitation

KFS

NEMA KEFRI

WRMA WRUA CBO CFA CFUG MoA

KFS KWS

Soil and Water Conservation

Promotion of biological erosion control measures

MoA

MoA KFS

WRUA MIS CBOs/NGOs

MoA

Conservation agriculture

Promotion of conservation agriculture practices (min soil disturbance, soil cover, crop rotation and association

MoA MoA MoLD

ICIPE / ICRAF/ ACT CBO

MoA MoLD





Permanent wetlands

management

Promotion of conservation + promotion of improved and diversified practices: improvement of fish capture techniques; ridge and furrow agriculture methods; extend fish culture system; fish farm integrated units; establishment of papyrus coup areas

WRMA NEMA MoF LBDA

MoF MoA, local bodies, CBO

WRMA

Seasonal wetlands

(floodplain) management

Promotion of improved and diversified practices: Ditches dug for water retention; optimum use of seasonal grazing; type and extent of fuelwood and fodder production

NEMA WRMA MoA

MoA MoF, local bodies, CBO

NEMA

2 INCOME GENERATION

Afforestation Development of private /community nurseries, non-timber products and handicraft

KFS

NEMA KEFRI


KFS KWS


Development of private /community nurseries, non-timber products and handicraft Improved marketing for products Access to micro-credit to support initiatives

MoA

MoA KFS

WRUA MIS CBOs/NGOs

MoA


Development of new crops for better nutrition and cash marketing Improved marketing for products Access to micro-credit to support initiatives

MoA MoA MoLD


MoA MoLD

Permanent wetlands

management

Improved cattle breeding by optimum use of seasonal grazing; Development of fodder production; eco-toilet promotion; beekeeping, handicraft

WRMA NEMA MoF LBDA


WRMA

Seasonal wetlands


Improved cattle breeding by optimum use of seasonal grazing; Development of fuelwood and fodder production; eco-toilet promotion; fruit orchard cultivation; beekeeping, handicraft

NEMA WRMA MoA


NEMA

3 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Afforestation

Operational capacity building for forest management/rehabilitation; Organisation of private /community nurseries; maintenance

KFS

NEMA KEFRI


KFS KWS


Operational implementation capacity strengthening (extension staff/NGOs) and planning tools for communities

MoA

MoA KFS

WRUA MIS CBOs/NGOs

MoA



MoA MoA MoLD


MoA MoLD





Riverbank protection

Sensitization; capacity building and pilot activity (buffer zones 10 K 30U m; plantations trees, fodders and grasses) (10 hotspots)

WRMA NEMA MoA

KFS MIS CBO

Local bodies

Promotion of sustainable

practices for sand abstraction

Sensitization; capacity building and pilot activity (10 hotspots)

NEMA WRMA MoLD MoA

NEMA MIS CBO

Local bodies

Permanent wetlands

management

Organisation of WMU to support the proposed activities on a sustainable basis

WRMA NEMA MoF LBDA


WRMA

Seasonal wetlands



NEMA WRMA MoA


NEMA

4 URBAN STRUCTURES

SWD Project – Bungoma / Kenya

Bungoma municipal council

NEMA/ WRMA

MPHS/ MoPW


SWD project - Lwakhakha /

Kenya

Detailed topographic survey; storm water master plan; design and construction of storm water drainage infrastructure; participatory process for storm water management

Bungoma county council

NEMA/ WRMA

MPHS/ MoPW


SWM Project - Bungoma / Kenya


NEMA/ WRMA

MPHS/ MoPW


SWM Project - Lwakhakha /

Uganda

Start-up stage (Preliminary survey, public awareness-training, cleaning); design of collection and transportation, disposal site system; implementation, administration and supervision

Bungoma county council

NEMA/ WRMA

MPHS/ MoPW




Table 10: Involvement of main stakeholders in SMM-IWMP in Uganda

MAIN STAKEHOLDERS UGANDA PROJECT/SUB-PROJECT MAIN ACTIVITIES


1 CATCHMENT CONSERVATION

Afforestation Forest rehabilitation programs ; operational capacity building for forest management/rehabilitation

MWE

NFA UWA LKWMZ KEFRI

NaFORRI District local Gov. (FS)/ FSSD CBO

KWS/


Promotion of biological erosion control measures

MAAIF

MWE/ District local government

MUIENR CBO

MAAIF


Promotion of conservation agriculture practices (min soil disturbance, soil cover, crop rotation and association

MAAIF

MWE/ District local government

NARO CBO NGO

MAAIF

Permanent wetlands

management Project

Promotion of conservation + promotion of improved and diversified practices: improvement of fish capture techniques; ridge and furrow agriculture methods; extend fish culture system; fish farm integrated units; establishment of papyrus coup areas

MWE

MAAIF NEMA District local Gov.

MAAIF NaFIRI CBO

MWE

Seasonal wetlands


Promotion of improved and diversified practices: Ditches dug for water retention; optimum use of seasonal grazing; type and extent of fuelwood and fodder production

MWE


NaFORRI MUIENR NARO CBO

NEMA

2 INCOME GENERATION

Afforestation Development of private /community nurseries, non-timber products and handicraft

KFS

NEMA KEFRI


KFS KWS


Development of private /community nurseries, non-timber products and handicraft Improved marketing for products Access to micro-credit to support initiatives

MoA

MoA KFS

WRUA MIS CBOs/NGOs

MoA


Development of new crops for better nutrition and cash marketing Improved marketing for products Access to micro-credit to support initiatives

MoA MoA MoLD


MoA MoLD

Permanent wetlands

management Project

Improved cattle breeding by optimum use of seasonal grazing; Development of fodder production; eco-toilet promotion; beekeeping, handicraft

MWE


MAAIF NaFIRI CBO

MWE



MAIN STAKEHOLDERS UGANDA PROJECT/SUB-PROJECT MAIN ACTIVITIES


Seasonal wetlands


Improved cattle breeding by optimum use of seasonal grazing; Development of fuelwood and fodder production; eco-toilet promotion; fruit orchard cultivation; beekeeping, handicraft

MWE


NaFORRI MUIENR NARO CBO

NEMA

3 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Afforestation

Operational capacity building for forest management/rehabilitation; Organisation of private /community nurseries; maintenance

KFS

NEMA KEFRI


KFS KWS



MoA

MoA KFS

WRUA MIS CBOs/NGOs

MoA



MoA MoA MoLD


MoA MoLD

Riverbank protection

Sensitization; capacity building and pilot activity (buffer zones 10 K 30U m; plantations trees, fodders and grasses) (10 hotspots)

MWE

LKWMZDistrict local Gov.

LKWMZCBO

District local Gov

Promotion of sustainable

practices for sand abstraction

Sensitization; capacity building and pilot activity (10 hotspots)

MWE MAAIF NEMA

MAAIF/ NEMA CBO

District local Gov

Permanent wetlands

management


MWE


NEMA NaFIRI CBO

MWE

Seasonal wetlands



MWE


NEMA NaFORRI MUIENR NARO CBO

NEMA

4 URBAN STRUCTURES

SWD project - Lwakhakha /

Uganda

Detailed topographic survey; storm water master plan; design and construction of storm water drainage infrastructure; participatory process for storm water management

MWE Lwakhakha town council

Lwakhakha town council

MWE

SWM Project - Lwakhakha /

Uganda

Start-up stage (Preliminary survey, public awareness-training, cleaning); design of collection and transportation, disposal site system; implementation, administration and supervision

MWE Lwakhakha town council

Lwakhakha town council

MWE



5.3 Option 1: Focus on existing implementation channels

National responsibilities

On the Kenyan side, the SMM basin is part of Lake Victoria North Catchment - LVNC.

MEMR/WRMA for LVNC has started managing databases for water resources monitoring and

permits for water abstraction, as inputs for a Water Allocation Plan. WRMA is also coordinating

and assisting in creation of WRUAs for decentralized water resource management. In future,

based on improved data availability, WRMA should be able and responsible to provide

information for important political decisions with regard to equitable water allocation. This

concerns water allocation not only within one sector, e.g. irrigation or water supply. In a time

with overall water deficits, water allocation between sectors (e.g. industry-agriculture) will

become important issues as well. In addition, the SMM basin being a transboundary basin,

interests at international/regional level are to be considered.

On the Uganda side, MWE / DWRM will start (July 2011) putting in place a similar structure for

decentralized water resource management. The SMM basin will be part of the Lake Kyoga

Water Management Zone – LKWMZ (Malaba-Malakisi River) and the Lake Victoria Water

Management Zone – LVWMZ (Sio River). The creation of sub-catchments below the level of

WMZ, e.g. for the SMM basin, is being discussed.

Since WRMA -LVNC and MWE - LKWMZ - LVWMZ are or respectively will be, responsible for

core tasks in water resource management, it is quite logical that these institutions also take the

lead in planning and coordinating IWM activities in their part of the SMM basin. They will be the

implementing institutions for the IWMP.

WRMA is actually doing this already at the sub-catchment level through their assistance in

preparation of Micro-Catchment Action Plans. Catchment plans are being made in consultation

with all stakeholders. Implementation of components of the plan is done or coordinated by the

first responsible institution in the sector concerned. Implementation is currently financed through

the sector agency’s own budget lines or through funding lines created for WRUA-identified

activities (National Trust Fund).

WRMA and DWRM (or the future two WMZs) would similarly coordinate planning,

implementation and monitoring of IWM activities at a sub-basin level in their part of the SMM

basin.

Planning would be carried out jointly with all stakeholders. For implementation, activities would

be “delegated” to the institution(s) most qualified/ most concerned, through Memoranda of

Understanding (MoU), for example with other Ministries or Institutions concerned by the project

(NEMA, MoA, KFS, KEFFRI / MAAIF, NEFA,NARO) . The targeted Ministries and Institutions

are specified in the tables above for each SMM-IWMP component.



Monitoring during implementation would be the responsibility of the implementing agency.

Thereafter, responsibility would be either with the institution which is also responsible for

maintenance of the newly created assets, or with the principle institution or interest group

exploiting these assets.

In analogy with the WRUA at smaller, lower level catchments, WRMA in Kenya would create a

SMM Watershed Management Unit for this purpose. Contrarily to the WRUA, the SMM

Watershed Management Unit would be part of WRMA, directly responsible to the Head of

WRMA and in charge of the watershed management activities in the Malaba-Malakisi and/or Sio

sub-basin. In Uganda, a similar unit could be created taking the mandate of the SMM

Watershed Management Unit (Sub-catchment Management Committee are planned in the new

structure).

In analogy with the WRUA at smaller, lower level catchments, WRMA in Kenya would create a

SMM Watershed Management Unit for this purpose. Contrarily to the WRUA, the SMM

Watershed Management Unit would be part of WRMA, directly responsible to the Head of WRMA

and in charge of the watershed management activities in the Malaba-Malakisi and/or Sio sub-

basin. In Uganda, a similar unit could be created taking the mandate of the SMM Watershed

Management Unit (Sub-catchment Management Committee are planned in the new structure).

The general scheme for institutional arrangement is presented below as Figure 2.



Figure 2: Organization chart: Option 1

Transboundary coordination and agreement

A coordinating body needs to be created for transboundary matters. This body, with a position

of Programme Management Unit , will initiate, facilitate and encourage keeping the momentum

in consultation and joint planning of activities by partner institutions on either side of the border.

It will also identify, and try to follow up on, needs of harmonization of approaches, policies and

legislation in the two partner countries. Harmonization itself remains a matter for sector

specialists and their advisers at national level.

The two countries will cooperate on the basis of a SMM Watershed Management Agreement

and it will be the first important task of the SMM Secretariat to invite both partner countries for



the process of drafting this agreement. A cooperation framework for transboundary water

resources management is already being drafted and a watershed management paragraph could

be added as an amendment. Both countries are in the process of developing a transboundary

water policy (in Kenya, the final draft is ready to be presented to the Cabinet). On the basis of

the two policies, a Cooperative Framework Agreement is to be signed, which provides for

obligations (pollution control and prevention), and rights (e.g. amounts of possible abstracted

water) for each partner. A Joint Commission of Cooperation, with NEMA staff from both

countries, will monitor compliance with the agreement, and non-respect is reported back to the

respective unit for transboundary water issues or line ministry.

More detailed guidelines will be recommended for the JCC to go with the Cooperative

Framework Agreement, stipulating matters like monitoring frequency, possibilities to mutually

request additional ad hoc monitoring, and agreed standards to be used for monitoring

(internationally accepted standards for water quality, effluents from towns and industries etc.).

The SMM PMU will keep both partner countries alert with regard to strategic decisions to be

taken at the transboundary level, and specific attention will be givento the treatment of issues

for which interests of the two countries are opposed. Strategic transboundary development

decisions will soon be required to this regard. At the basis of these decisions, will be a better

knowledge of flow regimes and a quantification of required reserve flow.

For technical issues or specific projects to be carried out, the SMM PMU will call upon technical

officers from the sector concerned, to form a Transboundary Technical Committee . For water

resource issues, these will come from WRMA and the WMZ concerned. For catchment

rehabilitation, these will come from MOA/MAAIF, NEMA and KFS/NFA. For urban storm water

or solid waste management, these will be engineers from the Municipal Councils concerned. At

the level of each technical issue, the Technical Committee and Secretariat will be responsible to

the Regional Steering Committee for IWRM/IWM.

The future role of SMM PMU is, in some way, an evolution of that currently played by the PMU

of the SMM River Basin Project. Before project implementation begins, a gradual

transformation/strengthening of the PMU should be considered. The temporary position of the

present PMU under NELSAP will then need to be transformed into a permanent position under

supervision of an existing international/regional organization. Several options exist to this regard

depending on who being the first responsible for transboundary river basin management.

Sio sub-basin is draining into Lake Victoria and a separate Sio sub-basin secretariat could take

a place under LVBC of which both countries are signatory partners. The Malaba-Malakisi sub-

basin secretariat will have to come under a structure for a different river basin, notably the

Kyoga river basin. The options for the Malaba-Malakisi Secretariat will be similar as for a

secretariat for the entire SMM basin:



• to come under an institution of which both countries are signatory partner (EAC, NBI),

• to come under LVBC with a broadened mandate, to include also Lake Kyoga,

• to exist as a separate interstate secretariat for Lake Kyoga basin, financed by the two

countries.

District / Sub-county level

Based in the project area, two coordination offices in charge of liaising with IWMP PMU will be

hosted respectively by WRMA in Kenya and MWE in Uganda, ensuring the sub-county/district

coordination of activities in the Watershed. Recommended locations may be Bungoma or

Kakamega in Kenya and Tororo in Uganda.

These two offices will ensure the required level of coordination and harmonization of

interventions in the area and with all concerned governmental line agencies representatives,

gathered in a District/sub/watershed technical committee , assuring the needed coordination

and harmonization of interventions on field, in liaison with extension and front-line officers.

They will have the general role of pushing forward the Integrated Programme rationale in the

middle of the many community-level project activities.

Stakeholders interests

Stakeholder’s interests would be respected at different levels. A rather favourable practice of

stakeholder involvement in planning activities has already been established in both partner

countries. Kenyan WRUAs undertake joint planning of MCAPs with a strong stakeholder

involvement. Sector related stakeholder forums are organized at district/division level for

ongoing activities and upcoming issues. With the new structure of WMZ in Uganda, technical

Management Committees as well as Stakeholder Forums are foreseen at Sub-catchment level.

NBI has supported the creation of Nile Discourse Forums at national and regional level to

provide a platform where opinions of the broader public can be brought forward.

Because of the multitude of activities to be deployed under IWMP, it would be good to have

Watershed Management Stakeholder Forums in both partner countries, both at the level of

the SMM sub-basin, as well as in districts or SWUs where a number of IWM interventions are

foreseen.

Farmer Field Schools

At the level of project implementation, the concept of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) will be

preferentially applied. This concept, already known and applied in both sides of the border, is

described in more details in the Chapter 3 below.



5.4 Option 2: Focus on direct implementation at district and local level

National responsibilities

In the second option, WRMA and MEW through DWRM would be the implementing institutions

and are leading a SMM-IWMP Management Committee gathering the different Ministries or

other Institutions involved in the Project Implementation.

Unlike the first option, in this case the projects implementation is delegated to a specific SMM-

IWM Project Management Unit responsible for the technical and financial executive

management of the projects and sub-projects

The general scheme for institutional arrangement is presented below as Figure 3.



FIGURE 3: Organization Chart: Option 2

Transboundary coordination and agreement

In this option, the transboundary organization would be similar to the one in option 1 except that

the role of the actual PMU of the SMM River Basin Project which would become a SMM-IWM

Project Management Unit, ensuring the planning, implementation and monitoring of the

activities.



District / Sub-county level

Based in the project area two coordination offices, responsible for liaising with IWMP PMU, will

be hosted respectively by WRMA in Bungoma in Kenya and MWE in Tororo in Uganda,

ensuring the sub-county/district coordination of activities in the Watershed.

These two offices will ensure the required level of coordination and harmonization of

interventions in the area and with all concerned governmental line agencies representatives,

gathered in a District/sub/watershed technical committee , responsible for coordination on

field, in liaison with extension and front-line officers. The line agencies concerned by the

different project components are indicated in the tables above.

Stakeholders interests

The Watershed Management Stakeholder Forums would also take place in this option to

allow participation of stakeholders in the decision making process, at the level of both the SMM

sub-basin, as well as in districts or SWUs where a number of IWM interventions are foreseen.

Farmer Field Schools (FFS)

FFS is described as a platform or ‘School without walls’ for improving decision making capacity

of farming communities and stimulating local innovation mainly for sustainable agriculture, but

that can be applied to any other activity proposed by the IWMP like soil conservation and

erosion control, wetland management, afforestation, agroforestry.

It is a participatory approach to extension, whereby farmers are given opportunity to make a

choice in the methods of production through discovery based approach.

A Field School is a Group Extension Method based on adult education methods. It is a “school

without walls” that teaches basic agro-ecology and management skills that make farmers

experts in their own farms.

Stakeholders Forum

Stakeholder’s interests must be respected at different levels. A rather favourable practice of

stakeholder involvement in planning activities has already been established in both partner

countries. Kenyan WRUAs undertake joint planning of MCAPs with a strong stakeholder

involvement. Sector related stakeholder forums are organized at district/division level for

ongoing activities and upcoming issues. With the new structure of WMZ in Uganda, technical

Management Committees as well as Stakeholder Forums are foreseen at Sub-catchment level.

NBI has supported the creation of Nile Discourse Forums at national and regional level to

provide a platform where opinions of the broader public can be brought forward.



At the scale of the watershed the IWMP should contribute linking upstream and downstream

communities to better manage the river catchment as a whole. This will be accomplished through

planning and financing of proposed interventions to be deployed under IWMP while incorporate

cross-community concerns. The creation of a Watershed Management Stakeholder Forums in

both partner countries at the level of the SMM sub-basin will help reinforce the stakeholder’s

commitment and link between upstream and downstream resource users.

5.5 Capacity building and projects Implementation at Community level

Depending on the projects, the approach for implementation of the projects through

communities will be different. The main objective is to involve communities and generally local

stakeholders in the decision process, planning, implementation on field and monitoring.

Therefore the Capacity Building process will be mostly based on the Farmer Field School

concept, with different types of associations included in these FFS according to the project or

sub-project component proposed:

�� For conservation agriculture component and agroforestry mainly implemented on private

plots, the Farmers Groups will be targeted.

�� For reforestation activities, intervention will be implemented directly with already existing,

or newly created for the Project, Community Forest Associations (CFAs) or

Community Forest Users Groups (CFUGs).

�� For soil conservation and erosion control interventions, which may concern several private

owners and communal lands, activities will be entrusted for implementation to a “Soil

Conservation Committee” composed with stakeholders concerned by specific degraded

areas

�� For wetlands management, the creation of sound local institutional structures called

“Wetland Management Committees” is proposed for implementation and subsequent

management and maintenance of newly created assets. Those Groups or Committees will

be composed of representatives of the main stakeholders and resource users and

charged with management of wetland management units of about 25-30 km²; this size

has indeed proved to be adequate in the Sio-Siteko project area.



CHAPTER 6. Outline of Investment Proposal

6.1 Components and Projects

The investment proposal is using an integrated watershed management approach and is built

around three main components targeting each of them a specific line of intervention in the

watershed; in addition, two more components and three supportive activities are included. The

components are shortly described below, and the investment sector projects as well as their

costs are detailed in Annexes 1 to 4.

Projects are sized for a first implementation phase of five years.

The figure below summarizes the main components and the related sector projects, as well as

the proposed supportive activities.

Figure 4: IWMP Components and Sector Projects

Components Sector projects

Afforestation

Watershed conservation Soil and water conservation


Income generation Permanent wetlands management

Seasonal wetlands managment

Watershed management River bank protection

Promotion of sustainble practices for sand

abstraction

Urban Infrastructure Storm water drainage in urban areas

Solid waste management in urban areas

Project management

Study of PES and carbon market potential

Supportive activitiesAssessment of storm water/solid waste

management in Tororo

Extension of water monitoring network

The structure of the project is based on local projects giving a view to integrated watershed

management through introduction of actions responding to the main issues identified in the



basin. To ensure support and effective participation of a maximum number of farmers and

farmers’ organisation, each local project must bring explicit and visible progress in the fields of:

• watershed conservation , environmental protection, mitigation of causes and effects of

erosion, support to biodiversity

• income generation improvement, livelihood diversification, improvement of agricultural

yields, support to access to market for the products and to micro-credit for individual or

group initiatives, and

• improvement of the watershed management including social aspects, organisational

strengthening and capacity building.

Because the projects will be scattered across the whole Sio-Malaba basin, and many similar

activities will be repeated in different projects (for example: development of tree nurseries, or

plantation of fruit orchards) the report presents them sorted by these three components, for

what refers to Integrated Watershed Management stricto sensu. The other project components

do not range along these three lines: investment in Urban Infrastructures , Project

management and the supportive activities do not need to present a direct outcome towards

each of the three components.

6.2 SMM-IWM Project Management

The Project Management Unit

The Project Management is proposed as a separate part of the investment covering the

different components.

Separate cost estimation is reserved for the Project Management with a proposed

implementation period of 5 years. Although depending of the institutional setting option chosen

for the project implementation, the budget includes management costs at the national and

transboundary level and the coordination offices in the SMM watershed.

The institutional framework for the PMU is described above in Section 5.1.

Costs for this item have been calculated on the following basis:

�� Costs have been established conservatively, i.e. for the most expensive option presented

as Option 2 in the Institutional Arrangement section. In case that Option 1 is retained,

some costs (PMU staff and operation) will be decreased;

�� The PMU is formed by a Project Manager with experts in Financial Management,

Monitoring & Evaluation, Procurement?and GIS, with the necessary supporting staff;



�� Two Coordination Offices are set up, one in each country, with one Coordinator (with

watershed background for one, and wetlands management for the other), one liaison

officer, one accountant and one GIS operator who may be contracted on a part-time basis

(indicatively: half time), plus the required supporting staff;

�� Vehicle running costs and office running costs have been estimated and included;

�� All costs have been considered for a duration of 5 years.

Project Management Costs

Investment Project / sub-projects Cost USD

IWRM Project Management USD 2,919,000

6.3 Project Component No.1: Watershed Conservation

Component Summary

The focus of the Watershed Conservation component will be on actions that will have maximum

impact on environmental protection. These actions need of course to be fully compatible with

the focuses of the other two components: income generation and watershed management.

The proposed related projects involve activities aimed at reversing environmental degradation

through soil improvement (replenishment of soil fertility, conservation of soil, conservation

agriculture), enhanced biological diversity on farm and off farm and increased carbon storage.

The proposed sub-projects ensure that land use activities will avoid environmental degradation

without compromising the ability for economic activity. These related activities and subprojects

are part of an integrated watershed management for the area.

The main Watershed Conservation activities identified by the Consultant and validated through

the rounds of consultation held with the stakeholders are indicated in the table below:



The development of Watershed Conservation involves considerable input from the community and

key stakeholders; this aspect is dealt with in Section 6.5 below. Whereas the proposed projects will

not address all the environmental issues, they are designed to encompass the range of key focus

areas identified by the stakeholders, and to implement the larger scale actions required to address

the more significant threats to the SMM basin.

It is stressed that the local sub-projects are proposed for different areas and different situations,

which differ one from another in terms of erosion hazard, prevailing land use, land cover and

land tenure – and also local cultural and social specificities. This means that different

approaches and implementation strategies are followed which best suit prevailing conditions.

The Watershed Conservation component also includes the conservation of wetlands, both

permanent and seasonal. The actions are designed to address the perceived misuse or

degradation of wetlands in the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi (SMM) area. The focus of the Wetland

Management Plan will be on activities that have maximum impact on watershed conservation

and wetland functions as well as they are compatible with the components of Income

Generation and Watershed management. The project under the Wetland Management Plan will

be concerned with the two wetland categories:

�� Seasonal floodplain wetlands: provide the best opportunities for wetland development in

the form of improved livelihoods, as these are not fully encroached yet.



�� Permanent wetlands: require a stronger emphasis on conservation because of their

important ecological function in the SMM basin as a whole.

Project Component No.1 will contribute to the different sector activities listed above in Section

6.1 for the part directly aimed at Watershed conservation and presented in more details in

Annexes to this report:

Cost estimates are made by sub-projects and are given in the respective following sections.

Costs include a provision for Environmental and Social Monitoring, tentatively at 2.5% of the

sum of other costs. The general cost estimate for Project Component n°1 is given below.

Sector projects Cost USD

Afforestation/reforestation 5 368 000

Soil and Water Conservation and Agroforestry 3 157 050

Conservation agriculture 693 750

Wetlands Management 1 379 600

Riverbank restoration and protection 1 714 200

Project Component n°1: Catchment Conservation USD 1 2 312 600

6.4 Project Component No.2: Income Generation

Project Summary

This Project Component is designed to address the aspects linked to improvement of income

and generation of varied sources of livelihood through the actions at local level. This component

is crucial because livelihood is the first priority for the inhabitants of the basin, and because the

success of the whole programme depends on the support from stakeholders that, in turn,

depends on the outcome of this component.

In this component, the focus of the watershed management and wetland management activities

will be on actions that will benefit the farmers through provision of alternative livelihood activities

and improvement of incomes and, at the same time, are likely to have maximum impact on

watershed conservation and wetland functions as well.



Introduction of updated techniques in agricultural activities and recommendations on cash and

food crops to be incorporated in the cropping pattern will be combined with advice on

conservation of harvested products to decrease post-harvest losses, support on access to

market with traditional and new products, and access to micro-credit as a support for initiatives

for families or small groups of farmers. Activities led by women, in particular, will be given due

support.

A loan fund for fish farm pond inputs, establishing of fish-farm integrated units and fruit orchard

commercial enhancement is integrated in the budget.

Project Costs

For each Project Component, costs have been calculated for the relevant Sector Projects, and

are summarized in the table below. Costs have been rounded to the nearest 50 USD.




Conservation agriculture 1 557 750


Project Component n°2 – Income Generation USD 7 716 500

6.5 Project Component No.3: Watershed Management

Sustainability of the outcomes of the watershed conservation and income generation

components depends heavily on improved management process, at all levels and primarily at

local level (village, community…). This is why the Management aspects are grouped in a

separate component.

In general terms, the actions involved in this component do not require heavy budgets, but they

need a smooth management of the funds, including transparency, flexibility and demand-

responsiveness.






Conservation agriculture 2 355 350


Riverbank restoration and protection 425 400

Promotion of sustainable practices for sand abstraction 200 000

Urban Infrastructures (ESMF part only) 150 600

Project Component n°3 – Watershed Management USD 10 326 200

6.6 Project Component No.4: Urban Infrastructures

Storm Water Drainage Master Plan for Bungoma

Summary of the sub-project

Bungoma Town drainage problems have compounded primarily due to continued rapid growth,

lack of funding for maintenance, rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure and construction of

the new drainage system. In addition, the lack of any designed system has contributed to the

flooding problems in the Municipality. Most of the drainage channels have developed over a

period of time from the natural path taken by the storm water.

The Master Plan addresses the assessment of the performance of existing drainage system,

and outlines strategies for storm water management. It provides a long term management plan

for the storm water management strategies which minimize problems associated with flooding

while ensuring that water quality and pollution control in Khalaba and Sio Rivers is maintained

to acceptable standards. The plan will help the municipality manage storm water resources and

identify, evaluate, improve the existing drainage infrastructure and provide a future plan for the

expansion of the drainage systems in line with the Municipality’s growth. This Master plan is

developed in line with the challenges the Municipal Council is facing in managing storm water in

its area of jurisdiction.

The mandate of the management of storm water is under the Ministry of Local Government and

by extension the Bungoma Municipal Council. Bungoma Municipal Council will therefore be



responsible for overseeing the operation, routine maintenance and rehabilitation of all Storm

Water facilities in both Central Business District and the outlying Wards. It shall establish

performance standards, clearly describing the Storm Water facilities, and explain how each

facility is intended to function and operate over time governed by the laws, regulations and Acts

of Parliament of the Republic of Kenya that directly and indirectly touch on drainage aspects.

Sub-project Costs


SWD-MP Bungoma USD 2,966,000

Storm Water Drainage Master Plan for Lwakhaka- Keny a/ Lwakhaka - Uganda


The mandate of the management of storm water in Lwakhaka- Kenya is under the Ministry of

Local Government and by extension the Bungoma County Council. Limited drainage channels

are available within the Kenyan side of the town. All the drainage channels on the Kenyan side

have developed over a period of time from the natural path taken by the storm water with the

exception of the main drainage channel that runs alongside the main road towards the border

crossing and the river.

On the Ugandan side, the Lwakhakha Town Council is responsible for the management of storm

water. The town boosts of a fairly elaborate drainage system consisting of both lined and

unlined channels that is well maintained.

Solution to the issue of storm water drainage cannot be addressed separately by the authorities

on each side of the border, because problems are linked within the transborder urban area. It

has then been found necessary to establish one sub-project including both Lwakhakha Kenya

and Lwakhakha Uganda.

Both Lwakhakha towns are lacking a comprehensive overview of the situation as a Physical

Development Plan for the two twin towns is lacking at this stage. Therefore, an outline for storm

water drainage is prepared as a general guideline from which the town can prepare a Master

Plan and implement both short and long term development plans.



Sub-project Costs


SWD-MP Lwakhakha Kenya & Uganda USD 242,000

Solid Waste Management Master Plan for Bungoma


The rapid increase in population has resulted in the increase in solid waste generation rate

which is estimated at 28 tons/day based on the core urban population whereas about 13

tons/day is generated from the peri-urban areas of the municipality. About 80% of the present

waste generation in the core urban areas of Bungoma Municipality is left uncollected or illegally

dumped within the town, while the remaining 20% is carried to the final disposal site daily. The

site is an open dumpsite and this, therefore, has a detrimental effect on the surrounding

environment. The dumpsite is located within the catchment of Sio River which originates from

wetlands west of Bungoma town and eventually drains into Lake Victoria. Since this situation is

an eminent risk on the environmental, health, hygiene and aesthetic conditions of the people of

Bungoma town, solid waste management is an issue requiring urgent intervention.

The Integrated solid waste management initiative seeks to maximize resource use efficiency by

taking a strategic approach to the sustainable management of solid waste considering all

aspects including sources of wastes as well as all stages namely generation, segregation,

sorting, treatment, recovery and disposal in an integrated manner.

Solid waste management study in the Municipal Council of Bungoma included evaluating

aspects of waste characterization, environmental and health impacts and solid waste

management systems. The waste characterization includes the determination of quantities of

waste generated and the generation rates in relation to the collection and transportation

services within the municipality. Waste management system on the other hand highlights the

gaps in institutional framework, legal and policy framework, financing mechanisms, waste

management technologies and the stakeholders’ participation in solid waste management in

Bungoma Municipality. The evaluation of environmental and health impacts of solid waste

management was based on literature review citing areas under similar conditions. The proposed

solid waste management strategies were determined through consultations between the study

team and officials from the Municipal Council of Bungoma.



Sub-project Costs


SWD-PM Bungoma USD 2,090,000

Solid Waste Management Master Plan for Lwakhaka-Uga nda


Solid waste is emerging as a challenge to public health and environmental concern in

Lwakhakha town Council. The town has a total population of about 13,000 persons according to

the 2002 population census. The rapid increase of population in the town centre has resulted in

an increase in solid waste generation rate which is estimated at 3 tons/day. Many studies in

developing countries indicate that about 50% of solid waste generated in urban areas is not

collected nor properly dumped off hence causing widespread indiscriminate dumping.

Lwakhakha town council was responsible of handling and delivering all waste management services

in Lwakhakha town, but it emerged that waste management services are nonexistent in the town

and the only solid waste management services were the collection of wastes from the street

cleansing. Even though the services are not regular and the town council has no proper designated

solid waste disposal point the waste is indiscriminately dumped and burned by the local residents.

The current waste disposal sites are less than 1000m from the residential, commercial and water

source, notably Lwakhaka river, being conflicting with Ugandan environmental provisions.

Prevailing land ownership conditions made it impossible for the County council to acquire a

waste disposal site. In addition, the council is both understaffed and under financed to

effectively manage the wastes making it cumbersome to have the necessary equipments for

solid waste management. This in part has been attributed to the council being relatively new

and the town council has other more pressing needs than solid waste management.

Most of the waste generated is organic and recycling as compost can reduce waste volumes

significantly, if the inorganic and organic components were not mixed.

The council has a new market which is expected to generate waste that will require regular

disposal services. This waste will be better managed if the council will have the necessary tools

and equipments.

The solid waste management study has proposed an investment plan for Lwakhaka town

council which was determined through consultations between the study team and officials from

the council based on the existing situation.

Sub-project Costs

Note that the figures below refer to the costs for solid waste management over 5 years




SWM-PM Lwakhakha Uganda USD 737,000

Solid Waste Management Master Plan for Lwakhaka Ken ya


Solid waste is emerging as a major public health and environmental concern in Lwakhaka

Market Centre. Lwakhaka has a population of about 1000 persons and the rapid increase of

population in the market centre has resulted in an increase in solid waste generation rate which

is estimated at 0.7 tons / day.

Bungoma County council is responsible of handling and delivering all waste management

services in Lwakhaka, but waste management services are actually non-existent in Lwakhaka

and the only solid waste management services are the collection of wastes from the Banana

Market. The county council has no proper designated solid waste disposal point, the waste is

indiscriminately dumped and burned by the local residents. It was also observed that some of

the current waste disposal points are along river Lwakhaka. Waste collected at the banana

Market is dumped on people’s farms on request and this highlights the need to acquire land for

waste disposal facilities in Lwakhaka.

Most of the waste generated is organic and recycling as compost could reduce waste volumes

significantly, if the inorganic and organic components were not mixed.

The council has no solid waste management staff in the market centre while at the same time

there is a proposal to build a new market which is expected to generate waste that will require

regular disposal services.

The solid waste management study in Lwakhaka included evaluating aspects of waste

characterization, environmental and health impacts as well as solid waste management

systems. The waste will only be better managed if the council will have the necessary tools and

equipment.

An investment plan for Lwakhaka market centre has been formulated through consultations

between the study team and officials from the council.

Sub-project Costs


SWM-PM Lwakhakha Kenya USD 359,000



6.7 Additional Investment Proposal: Supportive Activities

The project related to supportive activities comprises the 3 following components:

Component A : Study of PES potential, carbon market and REED fu nds

�� Investigate potentialities for development and access to PES, carbon market and REED

funds;

�� Training sessions, workshops and production and dissemination of technical and

communication support

Component B : Rapid Assessment of storm water/solid waste manag ement in Tororo

Component C : Extension of Water Monitoring Network

�� Monitoring of river levels and velocity measurements

�� Monitoring of sediment transport at river measuring stations

�� Monitoring of water quality (organic and chemical parameters)

�� Campaigns for river parameters assessment at key model nodes (outlets of the

subwaterhed units) for M&E of the Project

Supportive activity Costs *

Investment Project / Supportive activity Cost USD

Sub-project A - Study of PES potential USD 30,000

Sub-project B - Rapid Assessment of SWD and SWM in

Tororo

USD 25,000

Sub-project C - Extension of Water Monitoring Network USD 200,000

Additional Investment Project : Supportive activiti es USD 255,000



6.8 Total cost of the IWMP proposal

The total budget for the Integrated Watershed Management and Investment Project is

summarized below.

Project Component Cost

Watershed Conservation USD 12 312 620

Income Generation USD 7 716 520

Watershed Management USD 10 335 490

Urban Infrastructure USD 6 394 000

Project Management USD 2,919,000

TOTAL IWMP USD 39 677 620



CHAPTER 7. Monitoring and Evaluation System

7.1 General process for M&E

A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system will be established to serve as a tool to control and

manage the program effectively. Used as an integrated reflection and communication system

within the Project, it must be planned, managed and resourced.

The objective of M&E is to provide reliable and timely information on the implementation of the

program and facilitate decision making to guide the program to improve its impact on

beneficiaries.

7.2 Concepts for M&E indicators

The M&E system proposed for the SMM-IWMP is based on impact indicators and outcome

indicators.

According to IFAD (2002), “impact” in the frame of M&E is defined as changes – positive or

negative, intended or unintended – in the lives of the rural people as they and their partners

perceive, as well as sustainable enhancing change in their environment, to which the Project has

contributed.

Impact could be used to the highest goal-level achievements of a project such as improved food

security and increased household income; but any significant effect on poverty takes several

years to emerge, and frequently longer than most Project activities.

Accordingly indicators of Project’s impact must refer to a wide range of changes that help

reduce poverty, protect or improve environment. For example adoption of improved farming

techniques is an important intermediate impact. Local ownership and building capacity are also

important impact that encourages self-management for development among the poor. So is the

reduction of vulnerability and participation in decision making process.

On the contrary, outcome indicators reflect how well the Project has been implemented and how

the immediate actions have been correctly completed – without any consideration to the real

effect of the actions on resolution of initial issues.

These indicators are detailed in the log frame presented below. This proposed logframe which

is the tool for planning, monitoring and evaluation activities should be reviewed in the first year

of implementation of the program and adapted to the needs of the beneficiaries. At this time it

will be set up with a participatory approach involving various project stakeholders. Involve



stakeholders and beneficiaries in reflecting critically, builds stakeholder’s understanding and

ownership about the Project and starts creating a learning environment.

It will thus be enriched with new impact indicators and/or results allowing stakeholders to better

understand the monitoring and evaluation of outcomes and impacts of the Program.

A set of studies, surveys and evaluations are planned to enable the Programme to inform the

different indicators (baseline survey, mid-term assessments and final program, thematic

surveys, self-assessment sessions, tracking accounts farms, etc.).

District technical officers, extension staff and additional NGO’s staff recruited for the

implementation of some activities will be required to provide the PMU’s M&E officer reports

quarterly and annually on activities under their responsibility.

The PMU’s M&E officer will consolidate these reports into semi-annual and annual

presentations and analysis of program results (incorporating financial monitoring information

and activities under the PMU) which will be forwarded to the SMM-IWMP implementing

agencies, transboundary organizations and cooperatives institutions.

These reports will incorporate the results of Environmental and social Performance Assessment

(EPA) (see ESMF annex 4) of the projects and sub-projects.

A mid-term and a final external audit will be undertaken by an independent consultant.

Evaluations will be based on participatory methods, where representatives of all categories of

stakeholders will have the opportunity to express themselves.

The logical framework below proposes some possible indicators for project performance evaluation.

7.3 Logical Framework

This logical framework has been established to prepare for monitoring and evaluation of the

program progress keeping the focus on the different components, detailing part of the activities

involved in these components and proposing indicators and sources of verification whenever

possible.



Table 11: Logical Framework for Sio-Malaba-Malakisi Watershed Development Program

Results Hierarchy Verifiable Indicators Means of Verification Assumptions

Goal

Reduced poverty among the communities of the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi river watersheds.

Number of village HHs living below the poverty line reduced

Official statistics Baseline and impact assessment studies

Both Governments of Kenya and Uganda maintains and pursues pro-poor policies. No extreme economic or climatic

shocks.

Development Objective

Improved livelihood and natural resources management in the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi watershed.

• Increase in vegetative cover in treated micro-catchments, three years after project completion (include tree survival rate).

• Improved livelihood for participating families (nutrition, income, reduced workload).

• Reduction in governments’ expenditures on rehabilitation of public works damaged due to floods and landslides.

• GIS–based data collection on land use and land cover including photos.

• Socio-economic survey including financial income, nutritional income and women workload as indicators.

• District financial records.

Existing forestry and natural resource policies for Kenya and Uganda are sustained & enforced.

Components/Outcomes

1 Investments in Environment and Natural Resources Pr otection

Rehabilitation of soil and vegetation • Soil erosion reduced. • Vegetative/forest cover increased • Improvements in farmland and

grazing land. Conservation of wetlands

• Reduction in sediment load from selected micro catchments (MC)

• Reduction in erosion from treated areas • Increase in vegetation cover in rangelands • Arrested decrease in permanent wetland areas

and in seasonal flood plains

• Sediment traps. • Erosion field plots. • Vegetation field plots. • Districts records.

Physical conditions (soil, rainfall) and management practices (firewood collection, livestock rearing) adequate for soil and vegetation rehabilitation



2 Investments in Improved Livelihood

Diversified and more efficient use of energy. • Fuel wood consumption reduced. • Energy saving technologies adopted

Improved agricultural productivity. • Output from horticulture, fruit

orchards, forage and field crops increased.

• Increased access to irrigation for horticulture/agriculture, forage and orchards).

• Reduction in annual HH fuel wood use. • Increase in number of HH using renewable

technologies.

• Increase in rainfed crop production and yields per ha.

• Increase in overall value for irrigated crop. • Increase of number of households with access

to irrigation.

• Districts records

3 Investment in Natural Resources Management

Environmental awareness enhanced in MC communities. Modalities for participatory & sustainable natural resource management operational.

• Agreement among villagers in targeted micro catchment areas on MC management plans.

• Consensus in planning and management decision-making is reached through participatory processes with equal gender representation and inclusion of vulnerable groups.

• Districts records. • Baseline survey. • Impact assessment. • Meeting attendance and

minutes

• Awareness raising effective • Existing village structures for

decision making allows for the establishing effective modalities for NR co-management.

4 Investments in Pollution Control Infrastructure in Urban Areas

Stormwater and solid waste management

infrastructure assets in Bungoma and

Lwakhakha improved, and under study

for Busia and Malaba.

• Infrastructure constructed, maintained and operational

• Reduction in pollution levels of water bodies • Direct project beneficiaries, of which 20%

female, involved in implementation.

• Municipal records • Water analysis



Outputs

1 Investments in Environment and Natural Resources Protection

• Soil conservation works (4000 ha). • Forest rehabilitation and afforestation

(4000 ha). • Community-owned tree nurseries

completed (20). • Erosion measurement field trials

installed (10).

• Soil conservation investments effective. • Forests rehabilitated (% increase

vegetation cover), afforestation (number of trees/survival rate).

• Rangelands rehabilitated (ha. and % increase in vegetation cover):

• Public nursery developed (production increase).

• Erosion field plots and gully erosion (stick measurement) operational and participatory.

• Erosion/sediment measurement.

• Audits. • Data collected for river and

sediment discharge at hydrologic stations.

• Both countries pursue best practices for NRM and erosion control

• Effective collaboration in operation and data handling

• Basin Communities willing to invest in natural resource management.

2 Investments in Improved Livelihood

• Demonstrations and farmer training events (400).

• Farmer exposure visits (100). • Improved rice production (400 ha). • Improved forage crops (200 ha). • Improved horticultural production

(200 ha) including 80 ha of new fruit orchards.

• Water storage ponds rehabilitated and related irrigation canals built (20).

• Fishponds constructed and stocked (100ha)

• Energy saving stoves installed (2000 hh’s)

• Activity starting in new income sources: bee keeping, handicraft, ecotourism at private level (20 individuals or groups)

• Demonstration and farmer training program conducted (number of participants).

• Farmer exposure visits carried out (number of participants).

• Sustained increase in grain yields • Increase in forage crop production • Increase in horticultural production • Water storage ponds functioning (increase

in water collection); • Increase in number of fish ponds • Increase in crop yield and value from

irrigated land • Energy saving technologies reducing fuel

consumption.

• Supervision reports. • District records. • Audits. • Number of trees in

orchards and survival rate (records).

• Agricultural production records.

• Number of seedlings produced/ revenues.

• Sales record for fuel-saving stoves

• Fuel consumption (record/ survey).

• Village communities interested in participating in training/exposure.

• Sufficient land available for pioneering in new technologies.

• Basin Communities ready to attempt and adopt new technologies

• Basin Communities are active and interested in irrigated agriculture



3 Investment in Natural Resources Management

• NRM awareness raised in Micro catchment communities.

• MC plans produced with operational modalities for participation (20).

• Staff of GOK and GOU trained in participative approach to NR and socio-environmental management

• Capacity building and workshops for FFS and community leaders on: NR economics; carbon sequestration; energy efficiency and alternative energy sources

• Percentage of villagers in MC area taking part in preparing MC plans.

• Selected elements in the MC plans are NRM oriented.

• Numbers of plans produced (pro-poor/gender sensitive/ participative).

• Number of Technical Assistance contracts, workshops and training.

• Districts staff and Technical teams’ attendance and results.

• Supervision reports. • Districts records. • Audits. • Post training test &

evaluation charts.

• Procurement systems in place and functioning.

• Sufficient Government counterpart funds available in a timely manner.

• No community segment excluded from participating.

• Beneficiaries accept terms of cost sharing.

• Communities willing to participate in natural resource management.

4 Investments in Pollution Control Infrastructure i n Urban Areas

• Bungoma Pollution Control Infrastructure implemented

• Lwakhakha Cross Border Pollution Control Infrastructure implemented

• Busia Cross Border Pollution Control Infrastructure designed and agreed upon

• Malaba Cross Border Pollution Control Infrastructure designed and agreed upon

• Infrastructure subprojects completed on time according to agreed quality and with maintenance arrangements in place (percent).

• EMPs and RAPs are implemented in a timely manner.

• 80% People in Bungoma and Lwakhakha Urban Councils protected from periodic flooding

• 80% Area of Bungoma and Lwakhakha Urban Councils covered by drainage system

• 80% People in Bungoma and Lwakhakha urban areas provided with access to regular solid waste collection under the project

• Projects for Busia and Malaba established and support for their implementation from Urban Councils and other local bodies ensured

• Town/Municipal Council reports

• M&E Reports • Physical infrastructure

construction reports • Environmental Audit Reports • Reports for Busia and

Malaba ready for funding and implementation

• Affected stakeholders, if any, agree to be resettled

• National/Local Governments have sufficient resources allocated for pollution control investment projects;

• Development partners committed and willing to support pollution control infrastructure development in the SMM Basin



5 Project Management and Coordination

• Effective project management with timely monitoring and evaluation

• Project implemented according to schedule; • Timeliness in submission of performance and

financial reports; • Signed minutes of governance meetings; • Audit, Monitoring and evaluation reports. • Country level stakeholders involved in project

activities

• Project completion reports • Progress reports • Meetings reports • Annual audit reports

• Continued country and development partners support.

• Continued sustained funding of project activities.

• PMU adequately staffed with permanent members

• Political stability prevails within the basin



CHAPTER 8. Economic and Socio-Environmental

Analysis

8.1 Methodology

The analysis of the costs and benefits of a project aims to evaluate the economic rationality

of a possible investment decision. Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is basically a decision-making

tool that has been widely applied in project evaluation. CBA is carried out from a perspective

of ‘with’ or ‘without project’ comparison to capture net incremental benefits that arise from

implementation of a project or activity. In this particular case, the ‘with project’ is with the

IWMP to be implemented in the watershed while ‘without project’ will be the ‘status quo’

scenario where the IWMP is not implemented.

It is important to note that depending on the perspective from which it is carried out, CBA can

take two forms: financial or economic.

The technical structures of the two models are very similar but there are two fundamental

differences between them: firstly, the kind of costs and benefits that are included and,

secondly, how cost and benefits are quantified.

�� Financial CBA is carried out from the perspective of an individual stakeholder e.g. the

local communities and market prices are applied for valuing costs and benefits. At the

firm or household level, a financial analysis can be undertaken.

�� Economic CBA is carried out from a societal point of view and costs and benefits are

valued at their shadow values at a regional or national level.

The project doesn’t lend itself easily to classic economic CBA, and financial analysis

because most of the expected benefits can hardly be precisely quantified in monetary terms.

The demand driven nature of investments also leaves undetermined the specific investments

that will be made under the project, thereby making difficult any rigourous estimation of costs

and benefits for the entire project. It is possible however with reasonable assumptions, to

assess the profitability of the various types of investments that are likely to be made under

the project.



Given the difficulty of quantifying certain interventions, the analysis has been confined to a

sub-set of activities, namely the profitability of various agricultural or forestry enterprises in

which the communities and farmers groups are likely to invest in through adoption of

sustainable soil fertility and land management technologies. Two types of analysis have been

then carried out:

�� A financial cost-benefit analysis to assess profitability of some of the technologies or

alternative livelihoods introduced at the farm level, mainly for private financial benefits;

�� A social and environmental cost-benefit analysis for other sub-projects for hardly

quantified benefits.

8.2 Basic Concepts

The particular case of the SMM Watershed Management Project makes it necessary to put

the economic and socio-environmental analysis back into its context, as a project preparing

for a programme of actions, aimed at environmental protection, poverty reduction and

sustainable management, and proposing actions of very diverse nature. These different

components will need to be analysed from different points of view, because:

�� Component 1: Watershed Conservation aims essentially at medium and long term

benefits through improvement of environmental conditions;

�� Component 2: Income Generation is directed towards quick economic results to fight

poverty and to ensure farmers support to the other components;

�� Component 3: Watershed Management intends to set the bases for sustainability of

Watershed Conservation and Income Generation activities, but by itself it is not

supposed to create quantifiable benefits;

�� Component 4: Urban Infrastructures is expected to generate significant environmental

and social positive impact, but most of the benefits can hardly be assessed in financial

or economic terms;

�� Project Management bears costs with no corresponding benefits at catchment level;

�� This is why it appeared more relevant to evaluate benefits through the sector projects,

which contain activities responding to the different components.

The way the analysis is realized needs to take into account these different situations for the

projects and sub-projects.

To understand the economic and financial analysis, it is necessary to admit that the type of

actions from the different levels and their costs are highly dissimilar:



• Costs attributed to the Project funds are spread over the basins area, in a series of

local applications of the sector projects pursuing the three components; it is not

intended to concentrate in one area, so that local projects will not be capital-intensive;

• A large part of the project input, in terms of cost, is formed by work force of the local

farmers. This work force is not supposed to be increased or decreased because of

Project implementation, but to be re-oriented and supported towards more effective

methods and practices for results in the short and long term. In an overall analysis,

this work force cannot be accounted for, only the results in terms of production can;

• Other intermediate consumption items are usually incorporated in the analysis

(“analysis of effects”) such as water, fertilizers, pesticides… Here again, the central

focus of the project on sustainable development led to an emphasis on avoiding high

uses of these inputs: they will not be incorporated in the analysis.

These different elements led to evaluation results which are not very frequent in development

projects: profitability is very high. Developing good value forest with early income from

agroforestry, or changing from traditional crops to new ones with better sales prospect, can

give good economic results with low investment: limited capital investment, and use of the

existing manpower. This is why in most cases calculation of EIRR has not been done

because it was not possible (no balance of initial losses with further benefits) and only NPV

has been provided.

8.3 Financial analysis

The financial CBA of this project should be carried out from the perspective of the local

communities and be based at the household level. It considers costs that households incur

and the benefits they obtain from the project, valued at the local market prices. Some of the

most important benefits that local people will obtain from the project would include:

�� Increased agricultural production

�� Improved agricultural product marketing and prices

�� Improved efficiency and effectiveness in fertilizer use and thereby reduced fertilizer

requirement

�� Improved incomes from livelihood diversification

�� Employment creation from the project

Local people also face several categories of costs in the implementation of the project. Chief

amongst these is the reallocation of resources. These costs consist of labour costs,

transaction costs (mainly bargain and information search costs between buyers and sellers



of products), conservation agriculture costs (mainly time spent on the project), and access

fees paid to authorities when marketing outputs.

Local people generally have a higher discount rate than the wider society, especially

because the benefits directly accrue to them today and the future is uncertain.

8.4 Economic Analysis

The analysis of costs and benefits of the different projects and sub-projects shows in general

terms a very high ratio of profitability, for the following reasons among others:

�� Costs are directed to soft or preparatory activities: supporting consultancies, capacity

building, creation of nurseries… and not in heavy construction works;

�� No long preparatory process are involved such as land acquisition, resettlement, major

civil works, so that benefits can begin early;

�� An important part of the works costs will be apported by the resident farmers, who will

be at the end the first beneficiaries of the project, under the form of unskilled/low skilled

labour.

Two different analyses were performed, both of them with a 20 years horizon:

�� one (“Stakeholder analysis”) comparing the costs and the earnings at plot level;

calculations were made for a unit plot of one ha or for one Wetland Management Unit,

and then extrapolated for the full project development;

�� the other one (“Project analysis”) comparing the Project investment over 5 years

against the total benefits of the corresponding project/sub-project along 20 years.

In these analyses, only the main expected results have been taken into account. It is

expected that other livelihood initiatives will add up to these, and lead to a better result with

improved income for many inhabitants. The revolving funds prepared within the different sub-

projects should also support these initiatives to develop unaccounted for activities:

handicraft, medicinal plants, ecotourism… The Capacity Building effort will participate in

encouraging endeavours in those areas.

Additional benefits deriving from social and environmental impact are presented in more

detail in Section 8.5 below.

The synthetic results of the “Project analysis” process are shown in the Table below,

whereas more details are given in Annex 5 IWM Investment Project (figures in USD ‘000):



Table 12: Cost-benefit results

Sector project Investment

Costs

Benefits

(NPV @12%)

Benefits/Costs

Afforestation 7 757 19 246.00 2.48

Soil & Water conservation /

Agroforestry

8 793 166 249.00 19.4

Conservation Agriculture 4 607 84 386.00 18.8

Integrated Wetland Management 6 707 18 899.00 2.89

8.5 Social/environment Analysis

The project, as designed, is inherently an environmental project. It is designed to protect

water quality, improve land management, reduce erosion and degradation, and improve

livelihoods. Thus it addresses all aspects of the environment: ecological, social and

economic.

The project expects to intervene across the whole watershed allows meaningful beneficial

changes at a landscape scale, rather than localised impacts. This should be especially

beneficial for habitats and biodiversity, as well as for management of soil erosion and water

quality, at least in terms of turbidity and sediment load.

Besides, the main activities to be pursued under the project, such as, conservation

agriculture, afforestation, agroforestry and wetlands management, riverbank restoration

make it an effective instrument to mitigate climate change through carbon sequestration,

enhance biodiversity conservation on- and off-farm, and reduce sediment loading in

waterways.

Community involvement is a key aspect of proposed project, which seeks to bring lasting

improvements in the livelihoods of people that in turn could lead to better use and protection

of natural resources.

Improved social and economic conditions may be expected to have a positive feedback on

the environment. Indeed, communities which are socially and financially secure are better

able to sustainably manage their environment without over-exploiting the environment for

survival.



Overall, the environmental impact of the project is expected to be positive. The potential

increased use of pesticides is the sole significant environmental issue that needs to be

carefully managed in the frame of changes of agricultural practices.

The following analysis highlights environmental and social externality benefits that should

considered in addition to the economic benefits: such as benefits arising from carbon

sequestration, biodiversity and reduction in sediment loading into water catchments and into

Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga.

Biodiversity, Natural habitats and Wildlife

The Project will contribute to stabilize or decrease forest degradation process and improve

forest status and coverage, wildlife habitats and corridors, particularly in the upper watershed

As such, habitats will be improved for a range of wildlife, both plants and micro- and meso-

fauna. However, caution is required that these gains not be offset by increased use of agro-

chemicals, especially the use of herbicides, fungicides and pesticides that are inherent in no-

till approaches. In principle, properly applied, conservation agriculture should improve weed

control, reducing the need for herbicides. Farmers, however, may be slow to fully adopt the

system, especially when faced with ‘available’ forage for feeding livestock. This will be

mitigated to some degree by the efforts within the project to increase forage cover crops

throughout the farming system, including under coffee and as the basis for soil and water

conservation measures.

The better protection and restoration of riverbanks will decrease sediment load in the river

and also allow development of diversified riverine vegetation potential habitats, nesting,

breeding and feeding sites for aquatic fauna.

Afforestation mainly in the upper catchment and development of agroforestry in the whole

area while fighting against erosion will improve income for population, through wood

availability but also numerous other non timber products.

The project will also target improvements in the state of wetlands and other critical habitats,

Potential biodiversity benefits from the project can be measured through:

�� additional wildlife (plants and animals) extraction benefits that would accrue to

households in the project area, as a result of the project;

�� wildlife stock accumulation benefits in natural habitats, that would accrue as a result of

the project, with estimation based on the stock value of endangered or threatened

wildlife species;

�� the change in long-term livelihood sustainability or disaster mitigation benefits of

biodiversity for food, fiber and human health.



Erosion control, Soil fertility and Water quality

The on-farm interventions proposed, when fully implemented, will decrease soil erosion,

improve soil condition both for plant growth and for soil organisms, and increase overall

vegetative development and crop productivity, above and below ground carbon sequestration

while simultaneously reducing erosion and harmful agricultural runoff into waterways.

The protection and restoration of forests, and dissemination of agroforestry practices will

increase carbon sequestration, reduce soil erosion and maintain hydrological cycles thereby

having a positive effect on both climate change and downstream land and water users.

Because the combined flows of the Malaba and Malakisi provide about 10% only of the

drainage to the lake Kyoga and the Sio river provides 1,5 % of the drainage to Lake Victoria,

the intervention on the watershed is unlikely to generate any significant decline in sediment

loading that would have a perceptible impact on the global water quality of the Lakes.

Nevertheless, the project’s activities and particularly those resulting in planting of trees on

degraded lands would improve water quality in the catchments where the project is located. I

Potential benefits in terms of water quality from the project can be measured through:

�� Decrease of sediment load in the rivers; estimation has been made to potentially

reach a decrease of 30 % of the current level of sediments in the watercourses

�� Decrease of costs for water purification and hydraulic infrastructure maintenance

(for example reduction of silting)

Potential benefits in terms of erosion control and soil fertility from the project can be

measured through:

�� Conservation of agricultural lands available for agricultural production (crop and

agroforestry)

�� Improvement of soil fertility and crop yields

Ecosystem Services and Climate change

The project can contribute to incorporate global environmental benefits into local

development priorities. Indeed the inclusion of environmental service functions (such as the

erosion control provided by reforestation or the conservation of wetlands by a better

valorisation of the wetland’s products and resources) into project activities would generate a

greater development impact by increasing agricultural sustainability and output.

Besides, environmental services, particularly those associated with carbon sequestration

also have the potential to generate new types of assets that benefit local communities.



In terms of Climate Change the project’s benefits are both in terms of Mitigation and

Adaptation.

Mitigation: Although an important factor in reducing global levels of Greenhouse

Gases (GHG), the potential for carbon sequestration is generally ignored at national

and local levels in developing countries.

Integrated ecosystem management approaches will draw on agroforestry and other

land management techniques that also deliver benefits in the area of carbon

sequestration. The IPCC estimates of carbon accumulation rates range from 2 to 9

MT/ha/year, depending on the climate and the nature of the agroforestry practice.

Project activities incorporating carbon benefits have the potential to link global climate

change priorities to local initiatives.

Adaptation : All project activities are climate proofing investments and will contribute

more or less to the watershed adaptation to the forecasted trends in climate change,

namely increasing of rainfall extremes - and consequently severe and frequent flood

events - and increasing of temperatures.

Among others, improvement of vegetation cover (conservation agriculture,

agroforestry, afforestation, riverbank protection and restoration) and conservation of

wetlands along the river courses will decreasing the water run-off and then the risk or

severity of flood events. Diversification of crops and adoption of conservation

agriculture practices will reinforce the food security. As example, most farmers

involved in the recent SARD project1 indicated during the terminal project audit a

stabilisation of yields even in below-normal rainfall seasons as a key indicator to

adopt conservation agriculture.

Conservation of the Mont Elgon as a regional water tower through forest restoration

and protection is also to consider like a strong climate proofing measure.

Potential climate change benefits from the project can be measured through:

�� Estimation of Carbon sequestration

Carbon sequestration area under the project is estimated to accrue from 10 000 hectares of

forest or woodlands, that would be established by the end of the project period (in 5 years)

and would accumulate carbon for up to twenty years. Besides, it’s without accounting of the

1 Conservation Agriculture for SARD and food Security in Southern and eastern Africa (Kenya and Tanzania)

June 2004 to August 2006. FAO, 2006.



trees planting for agroforestry practices (mainly fruit-trees), thus 6 640 ha among which

around 10% would dedicated to tree planting.

The C and CO2 Emission reduction (CER) is based on projections made by other projects in

developing countries; for Peru projections for afforestation projects are from 2,5 to 4,5

tCO2/ha/yeart; while in Madagascar it could be evaluated up to 6,5 tCO2/ha/year.

Hence, it is estimated that 5-year old woodlands would sequester in the projected 10 664

hectares about 36 322 tons of carbon, corresponding to about 133 000 tons of CO2 emission

reduction (transformation ration = 3.67), that would result, for a CER price around 12 €/ton

(average price for the three last months in about USD 1,599,600 of carbon revenue for 5

years.

Social benefits

The project, based on a strong community engagement, may be expected to significantly

improve the social condition of the concerned communities. Experience shows that such

impacts are often amongst the most long lasting and significant. This will be strengthened by

the expected financial benefits to be derived by the farmers from engagement with the

project. Both the social and economic impacts are expected to be positive. Again, the

concentrated focus on a limited, but significant, area is expected to have a greater total

beneficial impact than similar investments scattered over a larger area.

Implementation through FFS and other community organisations, stakeholder forums etc. will

strengthen social ties and exchanges between farmers of both countries and will then create

linkages between upstream and downstream land use practices. It will also participate to

create professional networks with service providers and operators.

Furthermore, the project will also contribute to strengthen institutional capacity to implement

integrated watershed management and investments based on stakeholder participation to

address both domestic and global environment benefits, and the application of a community

driven methodology.

The project will increase awareness in environmental degradation and build the capacity of

community and other local institutions to identify and manage environmental issues,

implement new techniques to combat erosion (lands and riverbanks), use alternative

agricultural practices and undertake new activities related to the valorisation of natural

resources particularly in wetlands and forests.

Through supporting capacity building, awareness raising, land stabilization and afforestation,

improved farm management practices, the project will increase the sustainability of

agricultural land use and will protect habitats of critical importance.



Improvement of solid waste and storm water management in towns will have a positive effect

on public health, welfare and aesthetic within the towns and will reduce flood risks

downstream.

The table here-after summarizes the potential environmental and social benefits of the

project.

Table 13: Potential Environmental and Social benefits of the IWM Project

SECTOR PROJECT ACTIVITIES POSITIVE IMPACT

Afforestation • Afforestation/ Reforestation of

degraded gazetted forest

• Promotion of community plantation forestry

• Community support for sustainable forest management

• Support development of private tree nurseries and service providers

• Stabilize or decrease forest degradation process

• Rehabilitation of forests and woodlands, and re-establishment of forest tree species

• Improvement of forest status and coverage

• Increase capability and willingness of communities for the management of forests and woodlands

• Increase availability of fire-wood and wood for other uses for communities

• Improvement of wildlife habitats and corridors

Soil and Water Conservation - Agroforestry

• Promotion of physical and biological soil erosion control measures like integration of contour strips of perennial fodder crops, cut-off drains / earth bunds, retention dishes…

• Agroforestry promotion

• Support development of private nurseries and service providers

• Support restoration of existing small multipurpose dams or other structure for water harvesting

• Reduce surface run-off and soil and nutrient loss

• Increase land tenure/use conditions

• Decrease of erosion occurrence in the watershed

• Soil fertility conservation

• Improvement of vegetation cover

• Improvement of water retention and harvesting

• Improvement of soil drainage

• Secure land tenure/use conditions

• Increase empowerment process of communities

Conservation agriculture • Zero tillage/minimum soil

disturbance and seed drilling

• Soil cover (mulch, cover crop-legumes like lab-lab, mucuna)

• Selection of perennial crops instead of annual, good cover crops instead of open cover

• Crop rotation/inter cropping

• On site composting, crop residue trash lines

• Support service providers local hire services and manufactures of machinery (sub-soiler, ripper, direct seeder-jab planter)

• Soil fertility conservation and improvement

• Enhanced soil moisture and reduction of surface run-off and soil and nutrient loss

• Improvement of crop cultivation practices

• Diversification crop production, livelihoods and source of incomes

• Improvement of food security

• Increase capability and willingness of communities

• Strengthen social ties and exchanges between farmers by creating new CBOs, FFS, committees, and stakeholder forums

• Strengthen capacities and actions of technical officers

• Support development and capacities of service




• Multipurpose and nitrogen fixing tree planting

• Furrow contour cultivation

• Improved crop production measures

• Woodlots, fodder development

providers and operators

•

Riverbank protection • Sensitization on utility of riverbank

protection, capacity building (guidelines for riverbank protection and restoration)

• Implementation of promoted techniques on pilot areas as example purpose

• Vulgarization of laws and regulations related to riverbank protection

• Awareness on the risks related to deforestation and riverbank erosion (flood events, loss of land…)

• Promotion of afforestation and agroforestry on riverbanks

• Improvement of riverbank protection

• Improvement of biodiversity along the rivers

• Improvement of water quality and decrease of river silting

Promotion of sustainable practices for river sand abstraction

• Sensitization, on the risks related to deforestation and riverbank erosion (flood events, loss of land…)

• Improvement of knowledge on occurrence, practices and legal/regulatory framework in both countries

• Proposition of harmonized regulation for river sand mining for both countries

• Promotion of more improved practices for sand abstraction

• Community awareness on utility of riverbank protection

• Awareness on the risks related to deforestation and riverbank erosion (flood events, loss of land…)

• Improvement of riverbank protection

• Improvement of biodiversity along the rivers

Permanent wetlands management project

• Promotion of wetlands conservation (ecological functions)

• Promotion of diversified livelihoods/income generating activities

• Improvement of fish capture techniques

• Ridge and furrow agriculture methods

• Promote aquaculture, extend fish culture system

• Promote fish farms integrated units

• Establishment of papyrus coup areas

• Stabilize or improve wetlands protection and conservation of ecosystem functions and services

• Introduction of diversified sustainable practices

• Diversification of livelihoods and source of income

• Wildlife conservation (tourism)




• Promote eco-tourism and handy-craft development

• Promote small scale irrigation schemes out of the wetland areas

Seasonal wetlands (floodplain) management project

• Promotion of diversified livelihoods/income generating activities

• Promotion of improved and diversified practices

• Ditches dug for water retention

• Optimum use of seasonal grazing

• Type and extent of fuel wood and fodder production

• Eco toilet promotion

• Fruit orchard cultivation

• Bee keeping

• Increased income levels

• Better usage of natural resources and skills

• Diversity of income sources

• Enhanced environmental functions of wetlands

Storm water management for Lwakhakha

and Bungoma

• Improved water quality

• Possible improvement in groundwater quality

• Reduce soil erosion including soil & nutrient loss

• Increased perennial behaviour of streams

• Reduced runoff

• Reduction in flood occurrence

Solid Waste Management master Plan

for Bungoma and Lwakhakha

• Reduced flood risks

• Better management of surface water run-off

• Improvement of public health conditions, welfare and aesthetic within the towns

• Improved air quality

• Improved water quality downstream

• Availability of compost for use in organic farming

• Creation of new job opportunities



CHAPTER 9. Environmental and Social Management

Framework

The Sio-Malaba-Malakisi Integrated Watershed Management Program (SMM-IWMP) is

anticipated to have beneficial impacts on the environment since its overall objective is to

promote sustainable land use and environmentally sound natural resources management

through community driven development.

Although the project is expected to produce net benefits in terms of natural resource

management and conservation on one hand and increased source of livelihoods, incomes

and welfare for communities in other hand, certain project activities may have environmental

or social impacts that require mitigation

An Environmental and Social Management Framework is then necessary and is drafted in

order to ensure that the proposed financing under the new project design does not result in

adverse environmental and social negative impacts, as well as lead to enhancement of

positive environmental impacts.

The ESMF identifies main potential environmental issues relating to the project and

recommends measures for early integration into the planning and design, as well as a

mechanism for screening potential environmental and social impacts. The Framework will be

used to avoid, manage or mitigate all potential environmental and social negative impacts

associated with the sub-projects, and to enhance the positive ones.

The proposed ESMF is presented in Annex 5.



CHAPTER 10. References

1. Albinus M.P, et al, 2008 : Effects of land use practices on livelihoods in the

transboundary sub-catchments of the Lake Victoria Basin

2. Amadalo, B et al., 2003: Improved Fallows for Western Kenya: An Extension

Guideline. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Center.

3. Barklund, A., 2004: The VI Agroforestry Programme In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda:

Lessons Learnt on Sustainable Forest Management in Africa. Upplands Väsby, Sweden

4. Development of a Comprehensive Stormwater Drainage Master Plan for Malaba

Town Council, Uganda. Draft Design Report

5. Development Partners Sector Review. Agreed Minutes, 13th – 15th October 2010,

Kampala

6. Dugan, 1990: Wetland classification system for East Africa

7. Dyson M. et al. (eds), 2008: Flow – The essentials of environmental flows, IUCN

8. EAC, 2005: Transboundary Environmental Assessment Guidelines for Shared

Ecosystems in East

9. East African Community, 2007: Lake Victoria Basin Commission. Shared Vision and

Strategy Framework for Management and Development of Lake Victoria Basin. Popular

Version. East African Community Secretariat, Arusha, Tanzania.

10. EDER, G. 2007: Uganda / Water Policy and Reform Process

11. EEA 2008. The European Environment Information and Observation Network (Eionet

website) http://www.eionet.europa.eu/

12. Gaustadsaether, T. 2010: Water and Environment Sector. The 2010 Joint

Government of Uganda –

13. Giupponi, C. 2002. From the DPSIR Reporting Framework to a System for a Dynamic

and Integrated Decision Making Process. International Conference on Policies and Tools for

Sustainable Water Management in the EU. Venice, Italy.

14. Government of Kenya, 2000: The Environmental Management and Co-Ordination

Act, 1999, No 8 of 1999. Date of Assent: 6th January, 2000. Government of Kenya, Nairobi.

15. Government of Uganda, 2001: Uganda Forestry Policy, Kampala: Ministry of Water,

Lands and Environment



16. GRK, 2007 : Kenya Vision 2030,

17. GRK/LVBDA, 2005: Lake Victoria Basin Development Authority (LVBDA) Strategic

Action Plan 2009-2013

18. Horvath, B., 2006: Vi Agroforestry Programme Annual report for the 2005 fiscal year.

Vi Agroforestry Project, Kitale, Kenya.

19. ICRAF, 2000: Paths to Prosperity through Agroforestry: ICRAF’s Corporate Strategy

2001–2010, Nairobi: ICRAF.

20. Jama, B et al., 1998: ‘Sesbania tree fallows on phosphorus deficient sites: Maize yield

and financial benefit. Agronomy Journal 90 (6) : 717-726.

21. Kakuru, W. N., 2009.: Sio-Siteko Transboundary Community Based Wetland

Management Plan. FINAL REPORT. Nile Transboundary Environment Action Project

(NTEAP). Wetlands and Biodiversity Conservation Component

22. Kansiime, F. 2010: Sio-Malaba-Malakisi Transboundary River Basin Management

and Development Project. Baseline Water Quality Conditions in the SMM Catchment In

Uganda. Draft Report. Makerere University, Institute of Environment & Natural Resources

Kampala, Uganda.

23. Kiai, S.P.M, MLRRWD and G.M.Mailu, Min. of Research Technical training and

Technology, 1995: Kenya country Paper. Wetland Classification for Agricultural Development

in Eastern and Southern Africa.

24. KNBS, August 2010: Kenya Population and Housing Census.

25. Kristensen, P. 2004. The DPSIR Framework. Copenhagen, Denmark, European

Environment Agency

(http://enviro.lclark.edu:8002/servlet/SBReadResourceServlet?rid=1145949501662_7427778

52_522)

26. Lado, C., 2004: Sustainable environmental resource utilisation: a case study of

farmers’ ethnobotanical knowledge and rural change in Bungoma district, Kenya. Applied

Geography 24 (2004) 281–302

27. LAKIMO, 2004 : Lake Kyoga Management Plan, 2004 – 2007

28. Lang, Chris and T. Byakola, 2006: “A funny place to store carbon”: UWA-FACE

Foundation’s tree planting project in Mount Elgon National Park, Uganda. World Rainforest

Movement, Uruguay and U.K.

29. Larsen S. et al., 2008: Mid Term Review of Mount Elgon Regional Ecosystem

Conservation Programme (MERECP). Norad Collected Reviews 17/2008



30. Lubovich, K. 2009: Cooperation and Competition: Managing Transboundary Water

Resources in the Lake Victoria Region. Working Paper No. 5 - Foundation for Environmental

Security & Sustainability

31. M. Obernosterer/Busia Town Council/DED, Sep 2006: Sanitation Master Plan Busia

Town Council.

32. MAAIF, NAADS Secretariat, 2006: National Agricultural Advisory Services

Programme (NAADS) - Annual Report 2006/07

33. Mercer, D. E., & Pattanayak, S. K., 2003: Agroforestry adoption by smallholders. In

Forests in a Market Economy, Sills EO and Abt KL (eds). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic

Publishers: 283–299.

34. MERECP, 2005: Mount Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Programme

(MERECP) Programme Document. IUCN, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi.

35. MFPED, 2006: Uganda Poverty Status Report: Progress in Implementing the Poverty

Eradication Plan (PEAP), Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development

36. Ministry of Agriculture, 2009. Bungoma West District Annual Report 2009.

37. Ministry of Lands and Urban Development, 2008. National Land Use Policy:

modernisation through planned land use, urbanisation, industrialisation and developed

service sector

38. Ministry of Water and Environment, 2004: Farm Income Enhancement and Forest

Conservation Project FIEFCP

39. Ministry of Water and Environment, 2010: Water and Environment Sector

Performance Report

40. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, 2006: Kenya National Water Development Report.

Prepared for the 2nd UN World Water Development Report, ‘Water: A shared responsibility’.

Case study Keny

41. Ministry of Water and Irrigation, June 2009 : Flood Mitigation Strategy (Kenya)

42. Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment (MWLE), 2002. The National Forest Plan.

Kampala, Uganda. 156 pp.

43. Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment (MWLE), Land Sector Strategic Plan 2001-

2011.Utilising Uganda’s Land Resources for Sustainable Development. Retrieved 7th Feb,

2011 (http://www.mwle.go.ug/LSSP.pdf

44. MoA/GTZ, 2005: Farm Management Handbook for West Kenya, subpart A1 –

Western Province



45. Mount Elgon Regional Ecosystem Conservation Programme (MERECP). MERECP

Project/Programme Profiles

46. Muhweezi, A.B. et al., 2007: Introducing a Transboundary Ecosystem Management

Approach in the Mount Elgon Region. The Need for Strengthened Institutional Collaboration.

Mountain Research and Development Vol 27 No 3 Aug 2007: 215–219 doi:1659/mrd.0924

47. MWRMD/APFM, Sep 2004: Strategy for Flood Management for Lake Victoria Basin,

Kenya

48. NBI, 2010: Monitoring Strategy for the Nile River Basin

49. NBI, 2010: The Nile Basin - Wetlands Management Strategy (2010 – 2016)

50. NBI, 2010: The Nile Basin - Wetlands Management Strategy (2010 – 2016)

51. NBI/NELSAP, 2006: NBI/NELSAP/SMM-TIWRMDP/RFP02/2006. SMM Investment

Strategy. Final Report

52. NBI/NELSAP, 2006: NBI/NELSAP/SMM-TIWRMDP/RFP02/2006. SMM Repackaged

investment strategy.

53. NBI/NELSAP, 2008: NBI/NELSAP/SMM-TIWRMDP/RFP02/2006. SMM River Basin

Monograph. Final Report

54. NBI/NELSAP, Newplan Ltd., August 2010 : NBI/NELSAP/SMM-

TIWRMDP/RFP01/2009. Sio-Malaba-Malakisi River Basin Project. Pre-Feasibility Studies for

the Development of Multi-Purpose Storage Reservoirs in the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi River

Catchment. Draft Final Report. Volume I: Main Report

55. NBI/NELSAP/WREM, 2008: SMM Policy, Legal, and Institutional Cooperative

Framework. Final Report

56. NBI/NELSAP/WREM, 2009: SMM Policy, Legal, and Institutional Cooperative

Framework. Synthesis Report

57. NBI-Transboundary Environmental Action Project, 2005: National Nile Basin Water

Quality Monitoring Baseline Report for KENYA

58. NBI-Transboundary Environmental Action Project, 2005: National Nile Basin Water

Quality Monitoring Baseline Report for UGANDA

59. NEAP, 1995. The Nation Environmental Action Plan for Uganda. Kampala, Uganda:

Ministry of Natural Resources.

60. NEMA (Uganda), 2008: Pilot Integrated Ecosystem Assessment of the Lake Kyoga

Catchment Area

61. NEMA, 1997: Tororo - District State of Environment Report



62. NEMA, 2004a. State of Environment Report. Kapchorwa district local Government.

63. NEMA, 2004b. State of Environment Report. Mbale district local Government.

64. NEMA, 2004c. State of Environment Report. Sironko district local Government.

65. NEMA, 2007: National sand harvesting guidelines

66. NEMA, 2008. State of Environment Report for Uganda, 2007/08. Kampala, Uganda:

National Environment Management Authority

67. NEMA/UNEP, 2008. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment of the National Environment

Management Authority, http://www.nemaug.org.

68. Neufeldt H, et al., 2009: Trees on farms: Tackling the triple challenges of mitigation,

adaptation and food security, World Agroforestry Centre.

69. Nield, R.et al, 1999: Review of the management of the forest resources of Mt. Elgon

ecosystem, Kenya. Prepared for The National Project Steering Committee of Mt. Elgon

Integrated Conservation and Development Project. Forest Department, Min. of Environment

and Natural Resources & Kenya Wildlife Service, Nairobi (32 pp).

70. Njuguna, S. G., 2004. Environmental and Social Management Framework. Western

Kenya Integrated Ecosystem Management Project (WKIEMP). Final Report

71. Nyeko P. and F.M. Olubayo, 2005: Participatory assessment of farmers’ experiences

of termite problems in agroforestry in Tororo district, Uganda. Agricultural Research &

Extension Network Paper No. 143.

72. Obando, J. A. 2007 : A Framework for Integrated Management of Transboundary

Basins: The case of Sio sub-catchment in East Africa

73. Okeyo-Owuor, J.B. et al, 2010 : Status, challenges and new approaches for

management of the transboundary Mt. Elgon Ecosystem: a review

74. Ongugo, P. O. et al., 2007: ‘Emerging Roles of Community Forest Associations in

Kenya: The cases of Arabuko-Sokoke Forest Adjacent Dwellers Association (ASFADA) and

Meru Forest Environmental and Protection Community Association (MEFECAP). In Proc.

International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests. Bangkok, Thailand September

2007.

75. Onim, J. F. M., K. Otieno, and B. Dzowela, 1990. The role of Sesbania as multi-

purpose tree in small-scale farms in western Kenya. In Perennial Sesbania species in

agroforestry systems, ed. B. Macklin and D. O. Evans, pp. 167–179. Proceedings of a

workshop held in Nairobi, March 27-31, 1989. Hawaii: The Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association.



76. Otsuki, T., and Ogo, T., 2009. Determinants of adoption of agroforestry in Kenya.

Osaka University.

77. Pagiola S., 2003: Can Programs of Payments for Environmental Services Help

Preserve Wildlife?.Workshop on Economic Incentives and Trade Policies Geneva, December

1-3, 2003. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora

78. Perez C. and H. Tschinkel, 2003 : Improving Watershed Management in Developing

Countries: A Framework for Prioritising Sites and Practices. Agricultural Research &

Extension Network. Network Paper No. 129

79. Place F. et al., 2005: The Impact of Fertilizer Tree Systems in western Kenya: A

study on Impacts of Agroforestry. 3rd External Programme and Management Review. World

Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, 38pp.

80. Pretty, J.N et al., 1995 :. A trainer’s guide for participatory learning action. IIED

Training Materials Guide No.1. International Institute for Environment and Development,

London, U.K. 266 pp.

81. R.Winnegge, 2005: Participatory Approach in Integrated Watershed Management.

FWU, Vol. 3, Topics of Integrated Watershed Management – Proceedings.

82. Scott P., 1994: An Assessment of Natural Resource Use by Communities from Mt.

Elgon National Park, UNDP/Technical report No. 15, 1994.

83. Scott P., 1998: From Conflict to Collaboration: People and Forests at Mount Elgon,

Uganda. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

84. Shah, R. 2000. International Frameworks of Environmental Statistics and Indicators.

Inception Workshop on the Institutional Strengthening and Collection of Environment

Statistics, Samarkand, Uzbekistan (http://www.unescap.org/Stat/envstat/stwes-015.pdf.

85. Stonewall S. Kato and James O. Okumu, 2006: The role of community based

institutions in sustainable management of forest, water and soil: A case study of Mount Elgon

ecosystem, Uganda. A paper presented at the 11th Biennial Global Conference in Bali,

Indonesia- 19th June to 23rd June 2006.

86. Stonewall S. Kato+ and James Okot Okumu, 2006: The role of community based

institutions in sustainable management of forest, water and soil: A case study of Mount Elgon

ecosystem, Uganda

87. Tamukedde Z. & Hydroflow Services, September 2008: Sio-Malaba-Malakisi Basin

Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Management & Development Project.



Consultancy Services for Assessment, Design and Installation of a Sustainable Hydrometric

Network in the Sio-Malaba-Malakisi River Catchments. Final Report

88. Tororo District Local Government - Malaba Town Council, June 2008: Consultancy

Services for the

89. Transboundary Environmental Assessment for shared ecosystems in East Africa. The

East African Community 2005

90. Uganda National Water Development Report 2006:. Prepared for the 2nd UN World

Water Development Report, ‘Water: A shared responsibility’. Case Study Uganda.

91. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), (2004). Community Conservation Policy.

92. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), 2000. The Mt. Elgon National Park General

Management Plan.

93. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), 2002. Mount Elgon Conservation and Development

Project: Bridging Phase II. Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority.

94. Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), 2008. Contribution of Mt. Elgon Conservation to

Improve Livelihoods of the Neighbouring Communities. Uganda Wildlife Authority, Mbale,

Uganda

95. UNEP 2007. Global Environment Outlook 4 (GEO 4). Nairobi, Kenya, United Nations

Environment Programme.

96. USEPA 2006. Border 2012: US Mexico Environmental Program Indicators Report

2005. (http://www.epa.gov/Border2012/docs/BorderIndicatorsReportApril2006.pdf

97. Volume IA. Population Distribution by Administrative Units

98. Volume II. Population and Household Distribution by Socio-Economic Characteristics

99. Wambugu, C. et al., 2006: Fodder shrubs for dairy farmers in East Africa: making

extension decisions and putting them into practice. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre and

Oxford Forestry Institute.

100. Watson, R. T. et al. (eds), 2000: Land use, land-use change and forestry. Special

report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

101. WMD/Tororo District, Uganda, 2009: Popera community-Based Wetland

Management Plan, Magoola Sub-County, Tororo District.

102. World Agroforestry Centre Policy Brief 07. Food security World Agroforestry Centre,

Nairobi, Kenya.

103. World Agroforestry Centre, 2005: Improved land management in the Lake Victoria

Basin: Final report on the TransVic project.



104. World Agroforestry Centre, 2006 : Improved land management in the Lake Victoria

Basin: Final report on the TransVic project

105. World Bank Safeguard Policies .

http://worldbank.org/ENVIRONMENT/.../Policy_SEA_WB

106. WRMA, 2008 : Lake Victoria North Catchment Area. Catchment Management

Strategy

107. Zake, J. S. et al., 1999: Uganda. In Integrated Soil Management for Sustainable

Agriculture and Food Security in Southern and East Africa: Proceedings of the Expert

Consultation, edited by H. Nabhan, A. M. Mashali and A. R. Mermut. Harare, Zimbabwe:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

108. Zhang, J. and A. Fujiwara. 2007. Development of the DPSIR+C Framework for

Measuring the Social Capacity of Environmental Management. Discussion Paper Series Vol.

2007-4, Hiroshima University, Japan. (http://home.hiroshima-

u.ac.jp/hicec/products/DP2007/DP2007-4.pdf

Documents

Final Report Investment Project Proposalnileis.nilebasin.org/system/files/Main report 010812.pdf · Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PREPARATION